Thursday, March 10, 2016

Planned Parenthood video tutorials teach your teens how to negotiate sex.






PlannedParenthood.org


I wasn't going to post this because it makes me physically ill. I have ruminated on it for a couple of days and decided to go ahead, because we need to be aware of what Planned Parenthood is up to when it's not killing thousands of children a day -- namely, corrupting the rest of them.

Normally, I would embed the video right in the post so you could click it and watch immediately, but I don't want to do it. I just can't have it on my blog. So, I am simply providing a link and a warning that you will be (should be!) greatly disturbed, even as Planned Parenthood and the secular left is quite proud of these "educational videos":






These videos are important, you see, because, as we all, know, our young people "need" to have the "skills" to "communicate" and "negotiate" recreational sex. And Planned Parenthood is just the organization to do that. Thankfully they get half a billion dollars of our tax money every year to be able to put out quality material such as this! 

And please note that two out of the three examples of "enthusiastic consent" are homosexual encounters. No agenda there, of course. 



Please, any "progressives" out there reading this: Are you okay with this? And tell me, I beg you, where are we "progressing" to




Lord, have mercy.







160 comments:

  1. These videos are important, you see, because, as we all, know, our young people "need" to have the "skills" to "communicate" and "negotiate" recreational sex.

    Yet, the irony is that their “lesson plan” doesn’t give the right tools as it’s unhitched from any solid philosophy between the ‘partners’, and the definition of consent on their lesson plan includes the idea that “consent changes” and that “rape doesn’t always mean screaming and fighting”-- so there are actually no helpful skills acquired.

    There are just awkward, pressure-filled situations (potentially dangerous), where people are splitting hairs in real life application. I.e., “We’re kissing, we’re now in the bedroom, we’re now questioning this, and one of us doesn’t actually consent, but we don’t know what that looks like, because it doesn’t always include fighting per this instruction, so we silently feel weirdly pressured, and keep on and go father...” So, fail, fail, and fail.

    If PP is so worried about “consent”, they should not promote the idea of putting ourselves in the situations where we now have to split the hairs about what “consent” really is in real life application.

    In married life one need not worry about this awkward 'consent'. And when one abstains, that's pretty clear cut, too. These blurred lines promoted aren't giving any young people tools to do anything other than get more confusing pressure.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Confusion, chaos, no boundaries, all based in pleasure-seeking -- what could go wrong with such a worldview?

    They have utterly forgotten virtue, honor, duty, self-sacrifice, and respect for human dignity, both their own and others'.

    ReplyDelete
  3. How on earth is providing guidance on how to make sure your partner consents, corrupting THE youth????

    The video is for college students (17-22 year olds) not elementary school children and features people making out....

    If you don't think the videos are an effective means of communicating that message, that's one thing, but i can't fathom how the message itself problematic.

    How do you propose we should teach consent to college aged students and if you don't believe we should ( which the knowledge that sexual assault and generally shady hookups are RAMPANT, why not?

    ReplyDelete
  4. CS, I'm pretty sure this is aimed at teens as well as adults. And as for the rest of your questions… How did the entire history of mankind deal with anything before Planned Parenthood was able to make these disgusting tutorials to enlighten us?

    And do you think that potential rapists, drunk or drugged half the time, will find these videos helpful? Will they seek them out? Help me understand.

    Please, I do not want to despair for your generation, so tell me you see that this is just a tad disgusting and ridiculous. And that we need to return to sanity and virtue.

    Pretty please?

    ReplyDelete
  5. If you don't think the videos are an effective means of communicating that message, that's one thing, but i can't fathom how the message itself problematic.

    I already dissected both the means and the message. Both fail. See above.

    You cannot make sure. It's a gradient feeling, a gradient scale. It is an idea that "consent is changeable", per their own lesson plan. You said yourself you were put in awkward and deviant situations, that you were on some level taken advantage of. The line of consent was blurred because the intention is to have free wheeling sex, yes or no?

    Give me your best percentage guess on how effective their idea of "consent" comes to life in real situation application?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "How did the entire history of mankind deal with anything before Planned Parenthood was able to make these disgusting tutorials to enlighten us?"

    We dealt with it very badly in fact. Generally not believe rape victims, blaming them, saying the man couldn't rape you if you were married to him or generally shaming the woman. Its been dealt with terribly in the past especially in the decades/centuries before there were things like PP so I dont get the argument here.

    "And do you think that potential rapists, drunk or drugged half the time, will find these videos helpful? Will they seek them out? Help me understand."

    There are very few men who seek to rape women. These men aren't decent and no they won't be swayed with educational programming. But there are a lot of men, a whole host of men who believe if they just push harder, they can just 'convince' a woman to have sex, that they can pursuade her. I would bet that most men actually fall into this category. We've taught men en-mass to get laid and not be rapist, and they've mostly agreed. But these men think that means just dont have sex with an unconscious woman. We haven't instilled true-consent in men en masse. I know that from experience. It is an enormous enormous problem

    ReplyDelete
  7. Leila what is disgusting about ensuring your partner actually wants to have sex with you and not pressuring her/subtly forcing her into it? There are a lot of vile things about my generation, but the push to put an onus on consent is one of the better things not the worst.

    Do you think we have a consent problem. And if you don't think so ( even though multiple young woman living in the culture say there is), why don't you believe us?

    ReplyDelete
  8. CS, do you think consent would be an issue if the hook-up culture didn't exist? That is, if men/women didn't seek have random hook-ups or sex on the first date or one night stands?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "The line of consent was blurred because the intention is to have free wheeling sex, yes or no?"

    I don't really get what this means. Is the insinuation that u can't have truly consentual sex unless your married?

    "Give me your best percentage guess on how effective their idea of "consent" comes to life in real situation application?"

    Very rarely. Thats sort of the point. But I think thats terrible and we can move to have more consensual encounters if we as a society place more emphasis on it ( which is what we're seeing)

    ReplyDelete
  10. JoAnna beat me to it, CS. Back up one step. Is casual, recreational, hook-up sex a problem? And are you saying that good, moral men do fall into accidental rape? And to what extent does alcohol play a role in these casual encounters that have so much confusion? How will the videos counter that?

    ReplyDelete
  11. And if you don't think so ( even though multiple young woman living in the culture say there is), why don't you believe us?

    How can there be a consent problem unless we put ourselves in a sexually-charged ambiguous situation to begin with? We're not talking about being taken off the street against our will.

    Nip that confusion in the bud and prevent a potentially harmful situation by refusing to hook up with someone, by refusing to go to his place after the bar closes, where the hairs would need to be split, because now he thinks he's getting his chance to use the woman for pleasure, and she's only going to his place with him to do something less than that (in her mind, anyway), so now she's wordlessly pressured and in a potentially dangerous circumstance.
    Isn't this just basic common sense?

    Here's the basic idea of consent: I consent that you take me on a date. I consent to get to know you outside of the bedroom. I consent to have us see each other within the context of respect and self-respect. I consent to be more than a moral-less woman and I consent to see you if you're more than a moral-less man.

    Good start, that.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Cs,
    The point is, the second you go home to "hook up", it's just that in his mind. Hook up. Come on. You go back home with the guy and it's pretty clear why. Oh, but wait, it's not so clear. See? Confusion. Harm. Pressure. Ambiguity.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "CS, do you think consent would be an issue if the hook-up culture didn't exist? That is, if men/women didn't seek have random hook-ups or sex on the first date or one night stands?"

    I don't think consent would be nearly as much of issue without the hookup culture no. But the hook up culture didn't bring about date rape or pushy dudes ( the begining of time did that) It just created more encounters which creates more of an opportunity for things to go badly.

    But in general the hook up culture has created a nuiance that didn't exist before, you may want to do just fool around with someone and not do certain things with them. You may be open to the idea of seeing where things go, but I don't see how that's an excuse to borderline sexually assault someone

    ReplyDelete
  14. "JoAnna beat me to it, CS. Back up one step. Is casual, recreational, hook-up sex a problem?"

    The number one overwhelming problem here isn't casual sex, its an entitlement to a woman's body when she tells you no. That is the fundamental problem.

    "And are you saying that good, moral men do fall into accidental rape?" Absolutely because we have taught them that its his job to stop only she starts screaming or yelling. If we did a better job telling them its your job to make sure she wants to have sex with you, i think a lot of that would go away.

    And to what extent does alcohol play a role in these casual encounters that have so much confusion? Huge role, of course.

    "How will the videos counter that?"

    I wasn't implying that these particular videos countered anything, I think its a step in the right direction and a conversation that should be had

    ReplyDelete
  15. Is virtue a conversation that should be had?

    Is common sense something that should be stressed?

    ReplyDelete
  16. you may want to do just fool around with someone and not do certain things with them. You may be open to the idea of seeing where things go, but I don't see how that's an excuse to borderline sexually assault someone

    Oh, well, their helpful handy dandy videos and lesson plans are supposed to clear that right up for you!

    See? They don't. That's the point. They're sending the wrong message, trying to give some sloppy idea of 'tools for situations' and their whole tool calibration is off.

    They're not teaching self-respect, step #1 in any dating situation.
    They're not teaching self-restraint, because that would stop their $$$ flow.

    They're throwing you a bone. Their idea of "tools" for situational use is completely weak and you just said in more than one comment how it's not so easy to be suddenly cut and dry. So, they've basically shown their lesson to be a wash, even in 14 comments here. Nice.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Back at making me speechless again Nubby

    "How can there be a consent problem unless we put ourselves in a sexually-charged ambiguous situation to begin with? We're not talking about being taken off the street against our will. "

    Many situations don't start off as sexually charged. You may be watching a movie together, you may be studying, you may be shocker having a good conversation in a group, and then slowly everyone else starts to leave. What is the moral here. You were hanging out with boys what did you expect.

    ReplyDelete
  18. And if these videos are not really doing more than making us feel good about having a conversation, but not touching on the base problems such as alcohol abuse, lack of common sense, compromising positions in the first place, lack of virtue, then what are we wasting our time on these videos for instead of the other things I just mentioned? These videos claim to be teaching "skills"… Really?

    ReplyDelete
  19. OK, now I'm speechless. CS, are you saying that sexual encounters sort of just… "happen"? It's just so casual that now we can be sitting with someone and the next thing we're getting sexually engaged with them? Isn't that a problem in itself?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Nubby. This is ugly. This is presumptuous And this is wrong

    "Here's the basic idea of consent: I consent that you take me on a date. I consent to get to know you outside of the bedroom. I consent to have us see each other within the context of respect and self-respect. I consent to be more than a moral-less woman and I consent to see you if you're more than a moral-less man."

    How dare you, and I mean how dare you insinuate the notion that failure to do these things mean you are giving someone permission to rape you.This is digusting and wrong( I already said that, but worth saying again). Secondly, why on earth do you assume things these also aren't being done, the presumption here is ridiculous

    ReplyDelete
  21. Speechless about what? Did I give a blinding revelation, CS?

    You were hanging out with boys what did you expect.

    I was hanging out with the boys. I didn't go home with them or one of them, though. I didn't let the situation slip from my hands. And even if one of the boys asks me to go back with him, I hand him my number instead. It relays the message of, "I'd like to get to know you first." Self respect and respect for the guy.

    Not hard. Right? Or do women not possess this social skill anymore? As a woman, I can vouch that yes, we do.

    ReplyDelete
  22. CS,
    So, we're too dumb, as women, to avoid potentially harmful situations? What is so presumptuous about the comment?

    I spent many hours in bars with guys. Many at parties. Many on campus. I kinda understand the whole "fun" thing, CS. I understood how I could play that anyway I wanted. You seem to think you're powerless. In the whole situation.

    Don't you refuse come-ons? Or is there pressure there?

    ReplyDelete
  23. "how dare you insinuate the notion that failure to do these things mean you are giving someone permission to rape you."

    Except that she didn't insinuate that at all. Rape is always wrong. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. No one here has said otherwise, or even insinuated otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Everyone,

    And this is important. I've never had a one night stand, or really anything close to it. However, I have had on numerous occasions while getting phisical with someone, them decide to flat out ignore my ask that they not have sex with me. Not random people or people I didn't know well. Two of the biggest offenders was a friend for years and a boyfriend who went on to be terribly serious. I normally watch my language here but what you are propagating here is bullshit. What's worst it is actually harmful.

    There is always room for people to improve, but the overwhelming problem here, it's lack or virtue or common sense, or not getting to know someone well enough.

    It is that we haven't done a good job telling men not to put their penises in women who tell them not too. WE HAVE NOT DONE A GOOD JOB TELLING MEN THEY SHOULD ACTUALLY CHECK TO SEE IF THE WOMAN WANTS TO SLEEP WITH THEM.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "how dare you insinuate the notion that failure to do these things mean you are giving someone permission to rape you."

    How did you make this leap, CS? Huh??

    ReplyDelete
  26. "what you are propagating here is bullshit. What's worst it is actually harmful."

    What is it that we are propagating? And how do the videos, which purport to teach *skills*, help all this rape (even good guys becoming rapists like you said happens) go away in real life?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Didn't your own personal situation perpetuate the problem of consent then, CS? Unless I'm not reading your comment correctly, but a boyfriend ignored your request not to have sex, but then you allowed that same boy to be a serious boyfriend? I'm confused. So it was okay that he ignored your request of no sex, and you rewarded him by letting him be your boyfriend? I'm so confused.

    ReplyDelete
  28. No Leila,

    I wasn't saying sexual situations just happen. Nubby was insinuating that if u don't want to have a consent problem you shouldn't go home with a man from the bar. I was pointing out that we was victim blaming, you can have a consent problem stemming from a lot of situations that didn't start out as sexual, lest u should avoid studying with boys to give them the wrong idea.

    ReplyDelete
  29. And can someone tell me why TWO out of the three videos for "enthusiastic consent" are homosexual in nature? I don't even want to get into the question of how one woman can rape another and if that is so common as we are made to believe? How many women rapists are raping other women but accident, or even on purpose? Sigh....

    ReplyDelete
  30. But, I studied with lots of boys and they never assumed we were going to have sex. Is this how it is now? We are in the same room, so it turns into sex acts? Where is the control, or have decades of Planned Parenthood indoctrination taught our young people that we really are animals? I can't figure it out, how we have fallen so far from common sense. I'm truly confused. It's troubling to me so much.

    ReplyDelete
  31. C,

    the boyfriend said he didn't hear me.

    ReplyDelete
  32. It's troubling to me as well, Leila, and I'm a 25-year-old young woman! I have a ton of guy friends and the only time sex comes up is when we get into discussions about chastity lol same when I was in college (and I graduated only 3 years ago) I'd study with boys, hang out with them at the Newman Center, go running with them, heck even chill in their apartments watching TV or whatever! And never ever did any of them even try anything sexual or romantic; maybe I've just gotten lucky with having decent male friends?

    ReplyDelete
  33. The videos ( and I'm indifferent to the actual videos but think the campaign in general is good) are part of a campaign that tells men to ask for enthusiastic consent, which as i've been attempted to demonstrate is a huge problem

    ReplyDelete
  34. Well, first of all, the video only shows two gay couples out of three for a fair distribution of relationship types: boy+girl, boy+boy, and girl+girl. From their perspective, if you're going to include gay couples in your video, you don't want to look biased towards heterosexuals by putting two straight and one gay couple, or biased towards male gays by putting one straight couple and one-two male gay couples, or vice versa for female lesbians. Similarly, they deliberately used a black spokesperson and mixed-race could to REALLY drive home the point that in today's world, racism has no part in relationships, which personally I think is a good agenda to drive home. If they were pushing any agenda, it was an egalitarian, unity of the races message, rather than a homosexual preference. Plus, their goal is to be relevant to ALL teens, and not all teens are heterosexual. The choice to include gays is simply a matter of necessity.

    "And do you think that potential rapists, drunk or drugged half the time, will find these videos helpful? Will they seek them out? Help me understand."

    Sure! It seems you missed a large point of the video, because the whole point was that in ANY scenario, where both partners don't give explicit consent or are PRESSURED into giving "consent," it is rape, and that happens far more often than the drunken rape you describe. Much like testimony obtained through torture, consent obtained through manipulation or peer pressure doesn't count. So one might imagine two high schoolers who are alone, kissing, and the girl wants to go further, so she starts talking the guy's clothes off. The guy, having moral issues with this, but feeling conflicted because of his sexual attraction and the implicit assumption that all guys will say yes to sex (not true), doesn't want to disappoint this girl who he likes, so he says nothing, trying to decide what to do. Before you know it, they're having sex, and the girl has essentially raped him under the definition of mutual consent Planned Parenthood gives.

    Whether you agree that people should be having sex or not in the first place, the above situation is not a good one, and it happens all of the time.

    As far as potential rapists seeking out these videos, theoretically, they will ALL see videos like this because they will be shown in high school sex ed class. Will that stop willful, morally bankrupt assault rapists from attacking men and women? No. But it might reduce non-consensual sex. Simply being empowered to say no to sex should be something you'd agree with, Leila, and that was another large point of the video.

    After all, isn't that what you'd like this video to say? Say no to sex? Isn't it interesting that, statistically, areas that have abstinence only education have higher rates of teenage pregnancy, STDs, abortion (the vast majority of abortions are obtained by Christian women), and that even in highly Christian areas, the level of people who have sex by the age of 18 approaches 1 in 2, with it reaching 3-4 in 5 by age 25?

    Doesn't that suggest to you that abstinence only education simply isn't effective at actually stopping sex, and has much farther reaching consequences to teenagers than videos such as these, which attempt to teach teens how to behave responsibly, if they're going to have sex anyways? A teen who has sex, but uses birth control, might regret her decision later, but God forgives and it's as if it never happened. A teen who has unprotected sex and gets an STD and an unwanted pregnancy might end up dying early, spreading STDS to future partners, and might have an abortion. So I say that abstinence only education simply multiplies sin, while teaching effective birth control methods and consensual sex habits actually keeps the sin relegated to JUST the sex, or perhaps even reduces it by encouraging an atmosphere in which saying no is acceptable to all parties involved.

    ReplyDelete
  35. True responsibility involves respecting humans as humans, not as objects to be used for sexual pleasure. I demand respect. How I long for everyone to realize that sex is meant to be a complete gift of self between spouses, holding nothing back, including fertility, being open to life....i dream, i dream....

    ReplyDelete
  36. "tells men to ask for enthusiastic consent"

    ?

    So, it's up to the man to get the woman to be more enthusiastic so that he knows for sure? And if they are drunk? If she is pressured? If she likes him and doesn't want to "lose" him? Wouldn't his attempts to get her to consent "enthusiastically" be pressure in itself?

    This whole thing is creepy and weird and ugly. Blech. It's like the air we breathe and the younger generations does not even know that it didn't used to be this twisted, even a couple or three decades ago when I was a college student on a promiscuous campus.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Glad to see you back, John! When you have time, I'd really like to discuss your earlier comments re: miscarriage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JoAnna, I'd like for him to revisit that, too.

      Delete
  38. Let me clarify my last point: Christian abstinence only teaches that it is the responsibility of the Christian to say no to sex. Thus, if a Christian finds themself in a situation where they might have sex with another person, it is the CHRISTIANS fault for not saying no to sex, regardless of whether they were pressured into it or not. What Planned Parenthood is essentially trying to do is give responsibility to BOTH parties, both the one who wants sex and the one who doesn't. By saying that consent is necessary, or its rape, the one who wants sex is now the morally guilty one for not obtaining clear permission to have sex, and so there is accountability on both sides. Thus, a person who doesn't want to have sex knows that they SHOULD feel free to say no, and that not giving consent actually makes their potential sex partner guilty of rape, and that added culpability actually makes it easier to say no. Both because the atmosphere is one that discourages being peer pressured into saying yes, and because now they are both responsible for each other's guilt.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Leila,

    Do we have a consent problem?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Nubby was insinuating that if u don't want to have a consent problem you shouldn't go home with a man from the bar. I was pointing out that we was victim blaming,

    Victim blaming? Did I actually say that women are to blame for rape, CS? Or did I say a woman can make a wiser choice on how to navigate social interactions with men?

    You really shouldn't say I blame victims, because actual rape victims are completely apart from this whole conversation of awkward sexual interactions promoted by PP. Be on the level.

    It is that we haven't done a good job telling men not to put their penises in women who tell them not too.

    That would fall under "virtue" and if that's how you feel, you should pen a letter to PP telling them to come up with a video teaching this virtuous behavior instead of giving useless tools on hair-splitting sexual innuendos for confused teens, because something like virtue is very important to society overall.

    WE HAVE NOT DONE A GOOD JOB TELLING MEN THEY SHOULD ACTUALLY CHECK TO SEE IF THE WOMAN WANTS TO SLEEP WITH THEM.

    Again, PP's handy videos are supposed to be your light and your guide, there. It's supposed to be all about reading verbal and non-verbal cues and having awkward dialogue in the heat of some awkward moment with virtual strangers all in the name of liberation and modern pleasure.

    CS, I'm surprised you aren't a bit ticked at PP for promoting these videos, being that the consent line was crossed in your own life.

    It was the heat of the moment and your wish was ignored. See? And somehow PP thinks these tools -- in the heat of the moment-- are supposed to help in hook up situations, which are even less secure than boyfriend commitments? Really. I thought you'd agree with me on that. Surprised you don't. Why such a staunch defender of PP even in the light of logic?

    ReplyDelete
  41. By the way, John, you might be interested to hear that Catholics generally don't advocate for abstinence-based sex education either. (We're not fundamentalist evangelical Christians.)

    We advocate for chastity-based sex education, which is much more thorough and comprehensive than simply abstinence-based sex education.

    ReplyDelete
  42. John Romero, where to start. First, that's quite a stretch, you last conclusion. So, let's talk about that. We have had widespread (and I mean WIDESPREAD) sex ed for many decades now (before your were born). And I promise you, our teens are more promiscuous and more into hook-ups than they were several decades ago, before widespread sex ed. So.... How can that be? Well, the cultural norm was to support virtue, virginity till marriage, etc. Families and society held to that "peer pressure" so to speak. Did young people still have sex? Of course! But not to the extent that we see today.

    Contraception and safe sex.... okay, well, let's look to Guttmachers own stats (the former research arm of Planned Parenthood and vociferously pro-abortion). Their own stats show that over half of women who come in for abortions (and who knows how many who come in for STDs) were using contraception the same month that they got pregnant. STDs are on the rise, and there are more and more strains of them. Nature is not mocked and is a real bitch when crossed (excuse my French).

    But you are saying that we need pictures of lesbians kissing and heading off to bed (is lesbian rape during casual sexual encounters a real problem? I know that domestic violence among lesbian couples is) in order to understand "enthusiastic" yeses for sex? And our teens need to see that?

    The idea of "responsible married teen sex" is a bit of an oxymoron, no?

    ReplyDelete
  43. "Do we have a consent problem?"

    Oh, yes. And we have even bigger problems that contribute to and surround the whole problem of consent. Much, much, much bigger problems. The consent problems will continue on until and unless the core problems are faced.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Nubby, I want to repost your words for a second reading for all:

    Again, PP's handy videos are supposed to be your light and your guide, there. It's supposed to be all about reading verbal and non-verbal cues and having awkward dialogue in the heat of some awkward moment with virtual strangers all in the name of liberation and modern pleasure.

    CS, I'm surprised you aren't a bit ticked at PP for promoting these videos, being that the consent line was crossed in your own life.

    It was the heat of the moment and your wish was ignored. See? And somehow PP thinks these tools -- in the heat of the moment-- are supposed to help in hook up situations, which are even less secure than boyfriend commitments? Really.


    I am always mind-boggled (trying to think of a better word) that the PP folks (and those who believe them) see humans as animals with very sparse ability to have self-control (pleasure principle, don't let anyone tell you to use self-control, act on your sexual urges, be free, do whatever feels good sexually, no chastity education because it's not "realistic"), but then expects full and instantaneous self-control to come in the heat of the moment by (often drunk or drugged up) virtual strangers who act on those aforementioned urges and get to the point that a weak "no-ish" can lead to a real rape and ruin everyone's lives.

    Seriously, WHERE is common sense, logic, reason? What has happened?

    Let's preach self-control from the beginning, my loves! We are not animals, we are human persons!

    ReplyDelete
  45. I think some of this is splitting hairs. Because honestly, if PP came out with a video saying you are good and worthy and don't have to get physical with a guy/girl there would be no problem. Physical contact does not equal worthiness and when yhour a teen you just feel like it does. Remember back to the teenage days of new love when it feels like that physical attraction means you like someone more. You feel loved and worthy. Instead of focusing on how not to get raped - no matter what our opinion on the matter - we need to have videos on how to teach your kids they are worthy and loved hman beings. I tell you what, once you're at a certain base, its really hard to stop, no matter what. THIS iswhat they should be saying. Science tells us that when women have sex the same bonding hormone is seecreted that comes out when you have a baby, aka women are connectign with love more intensely and can make stupid decision. THIS is what they should be saying; really protecting women. There is a hookup culture. It is fueled by alcohol and also by women who weren't valued as children as much as men who were taught masturbation, pornography and sex are their God-given right. Planned parenthood promotes all these things which hurt and devalue women. They're not saying the right things even though they kind of sorta in a roundabout way have the right idea (aka consent should be given).

    ReplyDelete
  46. The consent problem is a misogyny problem that says, I have a half naked girl in my bed I can do whatever I want with her.

    We haven't taught boys that sex isn't something you take from girls is something you do with them.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Nubby and Leila,

    are you saying that one should not expect an instantaneous no in the moment to be heeded, from either a hook-up or a boyfriend ?

    ReplyDelete
  48. ??
    I'm saying the "instantaneous 'no'" is unlikely to come the further along we get in clothing removal in the bedroom.

    Of course it should be respected. Are you thinking that I'm all for blaming women?

    What is your angle on women here, CS? What are we? Powerless? Ignorant? Unable to navigate social situations or flirtatious ones? Do we know how to walk away and exchange a phone number instead taking a ride back to his place to tempt whatever may come?

    You seem to want to walk this line of "well, women are out of the picture here, let's look for a man to blame."

    CS, we're not talking being taken off the street against your will.

    We're talking precarious situations where flirting leads to physical interaction... and the 'instantaneous no' is either not going to come (which could still be rape, according to PP's videos even), or it's going to have to be said in light of some very awkward hook-up dialogue where it may be ignored because it's gotten too dangerous.


    PP 'tools' aren't going to help once you find yourself with that one hook up that won't take previously learned PP dialogue script for an answer. Skip the whole entire possibility by skipping the entire hook up process.

    ReplyDelete
  49. College Student:

    Of course, men are trying to have sex with women. Of course, they are trying to persuade women to have sex with them. Of course, they are saying "C'mon baby, you know I love you."

    You might as well ask the fish to stop swimming.

    That's men, honey. They aren't bad because they want sexual relations and as you admitted the vast majority of them have no desire to pressure or rape women.

    But if you are unable to speak up loudly enough for your man to hear you or otherwise make your wishes known while you are making out or are half-naked in some guys bed. Perhaps you are not ready to be in that position.

    That is something mothers have a duty to teach their daughters.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Nubby,

    I'm not at all insinuating that women can't resist the power to go home with men.

    I'm saying many women don't ( because they don't want to), and all women don't at some point. Before my husband is my husband, I'll 'go home with him' at some point. The 95% of women who have pre-marital sex, will 'hook up' ( re: sleep) with their husbands before they are naturally married.

    I'm not saying women are powerless. Unless you are dealing with a complete stranger, it is a very fair assumption to make that the man is going to listen to you if you tell him no, even nakedly.

    I'm blaming men in the event that one thinks its okay to sleep with a woman when she doesn't want to.

    'where it may be ignored because it's gotten too dangerous."

    Right Nubby, and this is terrifiying no? that there is a window to say no or else it will be ignored because its too dangerous

    ReplyDelete
  51. Monica Simpson, this is right:

    There is a hookup culture. It is fueled by alcohol and also by women who weren't valued as children as much as by men who were taught masturbation, pornography and sex are their God-given right. Planned parenthood promotes all these things which hurt and devalue women. They're not saying the right things even though they kind of sorta in a roundabout way have the right idea (aka consent should be given).

    It's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Is it really productive, what PP is doing? Or is it ultimately a way to make the Titanic look nicer while it takes everyone down to the bottom of the sea to our deaths?

    Where, oh where, has common sense gone?

    And where is the purpose and meaning of sex? I think because we've now blended all people and bodies together into one big quest for orgasm wherever it can be had (male-male/female-female/ teens, unmarrieds, strangers), then we have lost sight of any intrinsic meaning to the act. It's been unmoored from biology and nature itself, so it is literally "meaningless". And for something as important as sex (which produces new people) to be rendered meaningless, we have to view the world as godless, with no truth at all. And once we hit that level of belief, why does it matter if a man takes what he wants? There is no God anyway, right? Might makes right, the strong take from the weak, survival of the fittest.

    Where is the meaning in anything transcendent, for this PP generation? I'm truly asking. I'm guessing there is a lot of despair out there, behind the smiles of the slick videos.

    And yes, CS, a "no" should be instantaneously heeded. But would I personally EXPECT it in the middle of a hook-up, or a drunken episode, or at the end of naked sex play? Um, I'm not stupid, and I know what real life is like, and what I should happen and what does happen are not always the same. Why can't we teach our daughters to be wise, as StarFireKK said? And our sons?

    Why aren't we teaching kids not to put themselves in that situation and have self-respect. Like it was mentioned above, where is PP with THOSE videos?

    Question, CS: Have you come across a lot of virtue training, or holding up virtue as a really good and viable and cool thing, in your day? In your college, on TV, in movies, in the culture? How prevalent is it?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Where are you getting the stat that 95% of women are sexually active before marriage? Is it just your sense of it, or do you have a citation? Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  53. Starfirekk,

    I take no offense that men want to sleep with women. What I take issue with is this attitude/embracing that it will include lying manipulation, and how its dismissed by seemingly moralistic people as 'boys will be boys.

    I had this conversation with a friend recently, after we heard some guy friends talking about women they'd like to sleep with. and we thought? Could you imagine if we talked about men that that, how we were going to lie to them to use them for their money? Would people be saying girls will be girls would our mothers herald our behacior ( like the boys fathers do with them) What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Right Nubby, and this is terrifiying no? that there is a window to say no or else it will be ignored because its too dangerous

    Hence my recommendation to skip the whole hook up process. And not to tempt what may come. Did you ignore that part on purpose? We can remedy these things, ourselves. We can let the men know we won't be used, even if we find him good looking, interesting, fun, smart, whatever.

    1) What percentage of responsibility would you assign to the woman who decides to go home with a guy?

    2) Why aren't you upset at PP for talking through the various "windows" along the "make-out timeline"? I mean, they sure promote the idea that suggestion and innuendo are all good and well, even if both parties aren't sure or comfortable, from the couch stage to the bed stage. They even say, hey, once you get to the bedroom, pull out these helpful one-liners to guide the whole degrading experience of giving yourself to someone you don't know.

    The "window" to say no wouldn't be a necessary "window" when we're in the right context of love and marriage. The whole awkward, backwards, and unsafe arrangement of stranger sex would be entirely removed. Aren't you mad that PP doesn't acknowledge we should avoid "windows" of uncertainty by avoiding these types of hook ups to begin with? If they care so much...

    ReplyDelete
  55. "We can remedy these things, ourselves."

    Bam! Authentic feminism!

    And I hope CS answers your questions about PP.

    ReplyDelete
  56. CS-

    You misunderstand me. I'm not making a moral judgment on men who behave like cads. They are cads. You identify them, avoid them and move on with life.

    Teenage boy and college students are rarely full-fledged cads. (If you can't ID the cad- don't make out with anyone.) But they do make poor judgement calls, which can include lying and manipulation. It isn't right, and despite what you think they do get called out on it. But they are like teenage girl with a private phone line, prone to bad calls.

    Because they are prone to bad calls, girls must be wise, as Leila said.

    I know it seems unfair, but as you get older you'll learn there are a number of times when men are wise when we are foolish and save us from ourselves. The sexes are meant to work together, to be stronger as a team.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I know it seems unfair, but as you get older you'll learn there are a number of times when men are wise when we are foolish and save us from ourselves. The sexes are meant to work together, to be stronger as a team.

    Oh, StarFireKK, thank you for these true and beautiful words! I'm about to turn 49, and if I only knew back then what I know now! It's the thing I despise so much about modern "feminism" -- the pitting of women against men, and the pitting of women against their own children. It's so anti-woman, and so anti-human.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "Why aren't we teaching kids not to put themselves in that situation and have self-respect. Like it was mentioned above, where is PP with THOSE videos?"

    Because being alone with a person of the opposite sex and being open to the idea of having sex with them doesn't negate self respect. And that situation, why don't we tell people if you don't want to be sexually assaulted don't make out with men you aren't married too? Because in addition to being unreasonable it does nothing to address the problem, the problem isn't being sexual with men, its him thinking your presence there means you are agreeing to any conceivable thing he might want to do with you.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I know you do;t love Gutmacher but 95% of people have had premarital sex
    https://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/12/19/

    USA Today has similar findings

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-12-19-premarital-sex_x.htm

    ReplyDelete
  60. "[The problem is] him thinking your presence there means you are agreeing to any conceivable thing he might want to do with you."

    Wait. I thought we were not talking about cads. A guy who thinks that being in his presence means you are agreeing to "any conceivable thing he might want to do to you" is not going to be swayed by any PP video, any nuances of consent, and has basically no respect for you as a woman or human being.

    Why do we keep mixing up what we are talking about? Let's stick to one thing and apply it.

    A cad or a rapist will continue to be a cad or a rapist despite these lovely videos. So, what or who are the videos helping?

    ReplyDelete
  61. I'll look at the stats later, but I often use Guttmacher stats. They are on the wrong side of human dignity and human life, but that doesn't mean I can't respect their stats and use them.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "Hence my recommendation to skip the whole hook up process. And not to tempt what may come. Did you ignore that part on purpose? We can remedy these things, ourselves. We can let the men know we won't be used, even if we find him good looking, interesting, fun, smart, whatever."

    Nuuby. As I have pointed out, everything at some point is a hook up, even what turns out to be most marriages. Chances are he wasn't your husband when you first slept with him. And tempt what come?????? Nubby come on. 'Don't want to be kind of raped' don't ever make out with or get suggetive with a man, oh you did, what did you expect. You cannot be serious!

    "1) What percentage of responsibility would you assign to the woman who decides to go home with a guy?".. I'd need a narrative here, but considering this video is aimed at 17-22 year olds. I'll just pretend its college students and I'll use my own college in this thought experiment. But at my school if a freshman went to a frat party and met a guy and decided to go back to his room and they started hooking up and she didn't want to have sex and told him that but he did it anyway, id assign absolutely posatively no responsibility to her ( in part because my school was a generally close community and so theres a general trust factor with most guys you would go home with and culturally people hook up a lot without having sex, so thats an extremely reasonable expectation and in general because as I thought everyone knew, no means no!

    ReplyDelete
  63. I skimmed the videos, so I want to make sure we're on the same page. I only saw them saying 'ask the person to make sure they want to be here, I didn't notice pressuring language?

    "The "window" to say no wouldn't be a necessary "window" when we're in the right context of love and marriage. The whole awkward, backwards, and unsafe arrangement of stranger sex would be entirely removed. Aren't you mad that PP doesn't acknowledge we should avoid "windows" of uncertainty by avoiding these types of hook ups to begin with?

    No, I'm not mad that at college they don't say, hey don't want to get alcohol poisening, never drink. Because in addition to being wildly unrealistic and completely not helpful, people need help learning to drink moderately. Furthermore, where do you keep getting the idea that this is stranger sex? These are first sexual encounters, they could have known each other for a day a week a month or a year.

    I'm not saying this is the best resource, but there needs to be resources to help the people who are going to do this, which by the way is the vast majority of people including people who eventually marry each other!!!

    ReplyDelete
  64. CS,

    Why was I able to hang out with my male friends in college (sometimes one on one or sometimes I'd be the only girl in the group) and they never once tried anything sexual with me? Why was I able to hang out with guys without ever getting to any real temptation or situations leading to sex?

    In any case, I'm proud to be in the minority (I'm a virgin and proud of it!) :)

    ReplyDelete

  65. "It's the thing I despise so much about modern "feminism" -- the pitting of women against men, and the pitting of women against their own children. It's so anti-woman, and so anti-human."

    Bahhhhhhhh. No one is anti-men. Saying that the problem with rape and sexual assault is the people perpatrating is not anti-men. Saying that a woman has the right at any given time to say she would like to stop, is not anti-men. Saying our society would be better off if we taught men to get thorough comprehensive consent and be considerate of their partners is not anti-men. geez

    ReplyDelete
  66. "A cad or a rapist will continue to be a cad or a rapist despite these lovely videos. So, what or who are the videos helping?"

    Right now our culture tellls men that they just need to make sure they aren't hardcore raping a girl. I'm not saying those particular videos are the best, but they are part of a general movement to get consent. Something most men aren't really checking for because we haven't made them. Something many women werent sweeping under the rug because they were told it wasn't rape and she was in his bed. I think the videos are a step in the right direction. I think the attitude are a step in the right direction.

    ReplyDelete
  67. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/cw/post.php?id=495

    A link to another, fuller perspective on the Guttmacher stats. Worth a read.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Can't we do BETTER than just trying to make sure that people aren't raping each other in hook-ups? UGH. Our standards are so low. And it's not good for anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Hi Margo,

    every opposite sex hangout/relationship doesn't turn sexual or have sexual feelings in it. That's true with everyone, so I imagine that was applicable in your situation

    ReplyDelete
  70. It's also so bizarre to me that consent has somehow become the sole criterion of the good. CS, is that how you think your peers see it? That as long as there is consent, any and all sexual acts "between consenting adults [and sometimes minors]" are good and moral? And if so, where does that principle lead?

    I want to go back to, what is the principle here? What is the principle of PP here in these videos? Enjoy yourselves with fun, free, casual sex! As long as we follow the rules of "consent", it's all good!

    This was never the message of a civilized society, and how can this last and how much further down can we go?

    Just pondering the "progress" and wondering at the fact that there is no natural "stop" to it.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I may be wrong, but I think I remember you saying in years past that sex is not a moral issue, per se. Maybe that is not still your view. But if so, that itself is worth discussing.

    ReplyDelete
  72. "Something most men aren't really checking for because we haven't made them. "

    DING! DING! DING! DING!

    We use to, CS. We use to.

    In fact, it was such a common method it is even mention in art and song!

    ".......
    But each time we talk, I get the same old thing
    Always no hug-ee no kiss-ee until I get a weddin' ring
    My honey my baby, don't put my love upon no shelf
    She said don't hand me no lines and keep your hands to yourself"

    ReplyDelete
  73. I wanted a number, CS. Because then we can manipulate numbers to get a real picture of your assumptions here. “The woman is ____ % responsible.” So, then it’s not entirely the man’s fault.

    But, according to you, there is absolutely zero responsibility for the woman to choose to go back to the guy's place, even though everything wasn't talked through before they both went back. Even though things were merely 'assumed' there at the bar or the party, via the flirtatious suggestions, etc, right? Maybe they assume the same thing, maybe not.

    Let me understand that you relieve her of all responsibility to remedy the confusion and remove herself from the possibly precarious situation she might find herself?

    Cs- I don't know why it's not okay to admit, "Hey, that would not be smart of me, as a woman, to go there with him, mixed messages or not. Because, even though we're in unspoken agreement now, I could change my mind if we hit another gear, but it might be too late by then."

    Do you always mean to be so anti-male in your outlook?

    And can you organize your bulletin board of thoughts here?

    You literally jumped ship on "blame the man" to "don't always blame the man", from "it's not the woman's fault to her being half naked", to "yes, we shouldn't hook up".

    We do this too much when you comment. We end up chasing thoughts instead of nailing them down and analyzing any relationship between them.

    ReplyDelete
  74. As long as we follow the rules of "consent", it's all good!

    And the irony is that they, themselves, say that "consent is changeable". So how can that even be directing a 'good thing' like casual sex? Consent changes on a dime and someone is offended, scared, or in real danger. They act like there's a technique that's cut and dry to discern consent. Um, no. Real life application says risks are too high. Just ask CS who says we have a consent problem and all the modern women agree.

    Great promotion, PP. Promoting high risk behavior like that.

    I'd be keen on knowing why PP has it so right, “taking this step” as CS says, when the only clarity it brings is the clear message that they're a-ok with promiscuous sex because that means $$ for them in the bottom dollar of abortion resulting from said sex.

    You work long enough in the corporate world and you see right through the thick layers of marketing and promotion of product. $$$$$$ always about that money.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Yes, we absolutely can do better than making sure people merely aren't raping each other during their sexual encounters. Thats an extremely low bar, one we aren't meeting and so the first, most primary bar we must reach is to hit it.

    Consent isn't the sole criteria og the good, its the first criteria of acceptability.

    The PP videos are saying hey, we have a problem of consent, lets do something to address this problem. It hey people are getting sexually assaulted or believe they are getting assaulted and lets address that problem. Lets cut down on rape and rapey things in the paradaigm of the sex your having, here is how to better navigate the thing that you are doing/ or may be doing


    ReplyDelete
  76. StarFire,

    Right. Men used to know they had consent by marrying you. That isn't the case any longer. Now we have to teach men that you can give and take away consent without marrying them. That is what we have to teach them. We haven't made them learn this new model of consent. Which is terrifiying and a problem. And before you think I'm trying to insert some feminist bullshit here I am literally only proposing that we teach men as a whole to gain active consent. Which until this moment, I had no idea what a controversial topic

    ReplyDelete
  77. CS, so now we are starting at the lowest pit and going backwards just to try to maybe hit the LOWEST bar? Wow, that is so sad.

    Maybe we should try to raise the bar? Because all that PP is doing is saying, "hey, no rape, guys!" and very vague on how that is going to work, but is very much okay with the bar still sitting practically on the ground. In fact, maybe apart from rape, they are okay with all else that was once considered pretty awful and pretty depraved and flat-out wrong. Does morality just change with the times like that? Or is there something fixed?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Getting consent is not a controversial topic, CS. It's just stunning that we've fallen so far that we are only talking about the lowest possible bar (don't rape me). This is a reflection on the sexual revolution and it's part of the fruits. Lower the bar until the bar hits the manure, and then try really hard to raise it out of the muck that we put down in the first place. Uh, backwards. Start with a higher vision. Each of us can do it as individuals. It's only gotten this bad because individuals have dropped that bar. So, we rebuild.

    ReplyDelete
  79. And when I say rebuild, I mean start over. If you (me, she, he) were in the muck on the lowest rung (I've been there), pick up and start at the top. Guess what? I changed my life in one day. I didn't always succeed at first, but it didn't take long to have a new vision and a new habit of life. I never looked back.

    Jesus talked about swines returning to their own muck, or dogs going to their own vomit, someone get me the quote, lol. But that is not what we are. We are not swine, we are not muck. PP treats us like we are. Expects us to be like dogs, but just hoping we can copulate (or simulate copulation in the case of gay sex acts) and then just hope not to be raped in the process.

    PP is not our friend. None of these people/entities are the friend of women, children, or men.

    Think higher, aim higher. God does not want this muck for his children.

    ReplyDelete
  80. "Because, even though we're in unspoken agreement now, I could change my mind if we hit another gear, but it might be too late by then."

    If it is never too late to change your mind the man you are with is a rapist. I would never encourage you to go home with any man you think you can't change your mind with but if your in a reasonably closed setting, ie meeting a friend of a friend or after a date of someone you know, and you decide to go to his house, I think it is a fair assumption that you not be raped. If you tell that man you would like to do something and make it clear you don't wan tto do something else and he makes you, I think that it utterly and entirely his fault.

    I definitely think you should assume something sexual is going to happen, but if you want that to be making out or oral sex or intercourse, is up to you and telling men its ok for women to change their minds might help.

    ReplyDelete
  81. if the ideal that going home with a man doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants with you and you should have known better is anti-man, I don't know what to say.

    Nothing I said about men was anti-men but we teach men the basic rules of consent and they can't follow them, I would think we should start being anti-men

    ReplyDelete
  82. You have to help people where they are. Not in what you think is perfect or ideal or even in what you think they should be doing.

    You say that PP is at the lowest bar trying to discourage rape ( and i agree) but what does it sya about you that you can't even agree with them on that. The general reaction about the consent problem has been 'thats what the sexual revolution does or what did you women expect being alone with a man you aren't married to.

    In a situation where a man and woman sleep together casually and and he refuses to stop when she asks him to the biggest problem isnt the pre-marital sex its the borderline rape.

    As someone whose never been to PP and has never been their biggest fan, these dialogues always make me thankful for them. That there are forces like that in the world that at least endeavour to advocate for womens issues

    ReplyDelete
  83. "You say that PP is at the lowest bar trying to discourage rape ( and i agree) but what does it sya about you that you can't even agree with them on that."

    This is the part where I wonder if we are having the same conversation? What are you talking about? In my belief system, RAPE is a MORTAL SIN. Not only should it lead one to prison, it also is worthy of HELL if done with full consent of the will. So, what exactly are you talking about that I "don't agree" and that you are now "grateful for PP" after having this discussion? Huh? I don't get that at all.

    Planned Parenthood sets the lowest bar of all and LOVES the manure that the bar is stuck in, and you are grateful for that worldview? And Christianity teaches that you are made for dignity, glory, goodness and love, and you think this means that we "disagree" on the issue of the evil of rape?

    HUH????

    Sigh.... :(

    ReplyDelete
  84. CS, this is getting ridiculous.

    If a woman goes home with a man and then proceeds to say "I don't want to do x" That's her withdrawing her consent and we all agree if he forces her after that it is rape. This is the situation you keep bringing up- we all agree this is wrong.

    But what if the woman goes home with the man, decides she doesn't want to do anything further but doesn't say anything. She just tries to communicate through body language and complies with his advances. Would that be rape? After all, the guy never got a verbal yes.

    I don't think the second situation is rape as unfortunate as it is. I think the second situation illustrates a woman who should not be going home with a man at all even if it is only to make-out. She clearly lacks the maturity to deal with the situation.

    You keep saying we need to "teach men." That sounds very condescending to me. They aren't dumb. They are perfectly capable of figuring out how to navigate sexual relations with women. The guys have been harping on the "get the woman to say yes, so she can't cry rape" idea for years to protect themselves. This isn't a new idea.

    What's dangerous about the PP videos and the push for this education is you are creating the idea that if a man does not get a yes he did something wrong even if he has been given no indication the woman was unhappy. They aren't mind-readers.

    So if we now say, a lack of yes is a wrong. How do the boys protect themselves from charges of rape? He said he got a yes. She says he didn't. Does he need a signed statement? Some other proof? If he doesn't....then this effectively doesn't change a thing.

    The burden is still on the unwilling party to SPEAK UP.

    ReplyDelete
  85. "If it is never too late to change your mind the man you are with is a rapist. I would never encourage you to go home with any man you think you can't change your mind with..."

    Okay, so far so good... Don't go home with someone you can't trust. But earlier you said that sometimes good men (the ones you trust) become unwitting rapists in the heat of the moment with nakedness and alcohol, yes? So.... ?

    "telling men its ok for women to change their minds might help [them not to rape you]."

    ^^ That's for the good men that might become unwitting rapists, yes? Not for the "real" rapists?

    I'm trying to grasp why you are so happy for PP and so upset that we don't understand.

    We hate rape. We also hate the other muck and darkness, the very stuff that PP promotes as really super awesome good and liberating.

    Blech.

    I always come back to: You are a Christian, CS. Where is Christ in this? What is he calling you to do, to be, to advocate?

    ReplyDelete
  86. My two cents- PP is spreading confusing and pitting the sexes against each other.

    Men will naturally take great offense to the idea they are forcing women. But men also understand things get messy when boys and girls try to communicate with each other. They will see this as setting an impossible bar for them to clear. How often do the guys complain it is impossible for us to just tell them what we want?

    Girls on the other hand, think this is perfectly reasonable. Of course, he should ask! Well then things happen. Maybe she felt pressured and didn't stop it or maybe she regrets it later. Then....HOLD ON....he never asked me! The rat bastard. (Never-mind, the fact she was pulling off her clothes and moaning. Or doing something else which indicated to the boy she was having just as good of time as he was.)

    Viola- discord between the sexes!

    PP takes another scalp to their master.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Starfire,

    I also don't think the second situation is rape. I also don't know that it was the videos intention to say if you don't get a verbal yes you are committing a crime. The situations that are happening are generally not crimes and the women know this as they aren't reporting them as such.

    It may be condescending but we do need to teach young men this to actively seek consent, ask young women. They aren't navigating this super well.

    Men aren't mind readers but I think it would be great if we taught them to seek a woman's active participation in sex and not to just ensure she isn't crying. I don't think a man should go to jail just cause hes a jerk but I think a general PSA and raising of a socieital expectation is healthy and frankly is closer to raising the bar that Leila feels we need


    ReplyDelete
  88. I'm happy for PP because I appreciate the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of the problem. I'm 'upset' with you because you don't see a general need for education and seem to want to conflate this problem with te overall problem of pre-marital sex without just saying its a problem on its own accord.

    ReplyDelete
  89. I acknowledge the evil of rape, always have, always will. Remember what I told you via email a bit ago?

    I absolutely want to protect all women from this. My own daughters moved through to adulthood and I most definitely gave them not only a general education but a more specific one as well. It was thorough and they, like EVERY woman, is worthy of having ALL the education and facts, not just one acknowledgement with a very weak attempt at a very fuzzy solution.

    PP is not your friend, CS. And to be grateful for some entity that does not care about you, and is happy to degrade women, men, and children in so many ways just makes me sad. You know that any of us here would be more a friend/helper/motherly or sisterly figure to you in any need you have than would PP that has a horrible track record in harming women and taking their money.

    WE love you. THEY don't care if you live or die.

    ReplyDelete
  90. CS, do you know how wonderful and irreplaceable you are? Why? Because God made you. YOU. Your dignity and beauty as His creation demands respect and awe from the man who is prepared to say 'yes' to you and love you as Christ loves. This love means putting the other person's good ahead of selfish wants. And it works reciprocally. No matter what has happened in the past and how you weren't respected and loved by a man, tomorrow is a new day! Go for it - like Leila said, reach for the top and see the view from there. You are too precious. Never before or after will YOU walk this earth again. Don't settle for counterfeit love. A man who really loves you will wait for you (putting your good ahead of his wants). Isn't this what every woman really yearns for - a man willing to 'die to himself' for her? They really do love you on this blog and want your good without anything in it for themselves. Just what you should expect from true Christ-like love.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I did not watch the videos. I have read quite of few comments though. It is a very delicate conversation and I do not want to minimize date rape or ignore what it's like to feel so little of yourself that you end up in situations that are devastating.

    So, yesterday, I was listening to Catholic Radio on XM. The question for callers was what did we think of the fact that a group on Georgetown University's campus was inviting Cecile Richards, the president of PP, to speak. I listened to some pretty convincing arguments to the yes.

    The host repeated several times that this woman represents the killing of so many babies. I was driving, but I wanted to call in and say, no, this woman, perhaps unknowingly, represents the devil himself. Would we want to give him or one of his cohorts a podium?

    If we take a look at this from a heavenly perspective, we will see this for what it is. A good lie. A good lie always has a bit of truth in it and that is why it's vague and easy for those who are lost to fall for it.

    Lastly, when I googled her name for correct spelling, her twitter came up and do you know what it said?

    It's National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers! #AppreciateProviders #NDAAP

    ReplyDelete
  92. I'm happy for PP because I appreciate the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of the problem.

    We acknowledge it, too. Consent is a problem. Yes.
    So, then we don’t go “fixing the problem of consent” with videos that give no wider context as to why it’s a real problem. We don’t go fixing it by promoting some drummed up ‘answer’ within that pre-marital, casual sex, hook-up philosophy, itself.

    We should be backing up the bus, backing out of that whole philosophy, and seeing a new view of where exactly to nip that problem.

    Don’t you think the real remedy just might be that we should change the whole philosophy to begin with (from PP’s view to Christian view, in your instance)?
    Don’t we need to think innovatively toward a real solution and not remain in this faux-helpful world of PP which only generates more of the problem within the problem realm.

    They’ll never ‘fix it’, because of the soil it grows out of. The real fix is in changing the pot and the soil completely.

    Think of it in business terms. You don’t stay in the world of problems and just keep solving problems. Leave the world that gave those problems in the first place, and think outside of that ecosystem. Create a whole new system of thought and find a better solution. Try the Christian route because you are Christian. Not the PP route. Give the philosophy a facelift.

    I'm 'upset' with you because you don't see a general need for education

    False assumption. Of course we all see a need for education.
    Education is this--
    Woman to woman: Don’t go home with a man you don’t know.

    Woman to woman: You are strong enough to stand on your own without lowering yourself to what PP promotes in these dippy videos about extracting yourself from awkward sexual interactions.

    Woman to woman: You are smart enough to discern what is high-risk behavior and tailor your own choices to that, regardless of what a man does or doesn’t do.

    Woman to woman: You are smart enough to see through what PP promotes because you know they make their profit off casual sexual ‘mistakes’ and promiscuity (abortion).

    Woman to woman: If you’re following Christ as you say, you should see what He has to say about sex and love and that whole spiritual reality for true happiness.

    You have this fallback opinion that because we’re pro-men and uphold men as good that we’re therefore pro-rape. It’s bizarre. There’s no relationship between those ideas. None.

    It’s sad that you don’t have good experiences with men. I am thankful that my brother (think: testosterone in a tank) said directly to me—purposely in front of a former boyfriend, “If anyone ever hurts you, I will rough him up.” It was a bit more colorful than that and I am pretty sure the boyfriend gulped, but my brother made his protection known, and for that I am grateful. Not sure what precipitated that exclamation of protection, but it was a very clear idea of: You mess with her, you mess with me.

    Maybe my bro sensed the guy was trying to play me on some level. I don’t know. That relationship ended peaceably and the guys remained friendly, but I wish you’d have those good male experiences, too, of protection and love from a guy who has your back.

    PP doesn’t have your back. But there are good men out there who will. Building men up doesn’t mean endorsing rape, CS.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Hi Margo,

    The videos, and the general sentiment are for Jesus followers and atheists alike. But its our job to give people information they can use and apply in their lives in a way that is accessible

    ReplyDelete
  94. "They’ll never ‘fix it’, because of the soil it grows out of. The real fix is in changing the pot and the soil completely. "

    The reason PP has prevailed in this domain is because you refuse to answer the question as it is posed to you and re-write it into a question you like better.

    The videos seek to answer a question: how do I have better more mutually satisfying non married sex.

    Your response is that your non marital sexual relationships shouldn't be better, they are bad because you arren't married. That wasn't what you were asked.
    Non married sex isn't a liberal thing, or a feminist thing or a PP thing as 95% of people do it its a normal and accepted practice. There needed to be guides for these 95% of people that gives sexual advice in this paradigm. Its fine if you refuse to do that but in doing that groups like PP have to take over because they should

    ReplyDelete
  95. CS, The videos are not for Jesus followers. I could only stomach the first three scenarios. Those show happy couples preparing to fornicate, which is a mortal sin. Two of the couples are homosexual which can't even approximate God's design for sex, and which is one of the few sins that Scripture says "cries out to heaven for vengeance". They are in no way for Christians, and here we are in Lent, remembering and repenting for our sins which put God on the cross. We don't rejoice in sin, we don't trivialize sin, we don't normalize sin. Sin is the very thing that keeps us from God himself. Sin destroys our dignity and in the end it can destroy our very selves for eternity. Those videos, and Planned Parenthood, are not for Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  96. CS, The woman who founded Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, did so under the banner of "no gods, no masters". She was rebelling *against* Jesus Christ, denouncing Him. I want to know how you reconcile your latest comments with the fact that you are a Christian, self-professed.

    ReplyDelete
  97. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B5NMN7GBA4

    Some humor to lighten this thread up a bit. Enjoy!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FYI: It's a consent parody video.

      Delete
    2. PRG, that is funny!! And a pathetic commentary on today's "dating" scene!!

      Delete
  98. Your response is that your non marital sexual relationships shouldn't be better, they are bad because you arren't married. That wasn't what you were asked.

    Then it's the wrong question. That's the entire point, CS.
    Didn't your profs ever say, "Ask the right question to get the right answer?" Didn't they ever set you toward asking the good questions? The ones that serve to solve problems?

    Back up the philosophy. Let's ask the right questions. Let's ask the good questions, the questions that direct a good solution to a wide problem.

    How are these videos empowering when the entire situation is one of awkward sexual interaction? The context itself requires that you must start splitting hairs and guessing at innuendo and suggestive ideas and all of this confusing nonsense, all while making sure you feel "safe" and that you won't be raped at the last second. Genius.

    "Consent is changeable." There is no cut and dry anything from their own stupid lesson plan, CS.

    The best idea is to not go near the flame to begin with, not worry about how to douse the fires once they start getting too big to handle. Use brains, steer clear. Easy. Do the Christian thing and stay away from sin. It's not only doable, it's sort of required if one follows Christ. It's sort of required that we use His view, not our own, not PP's, not the world's.

    Videos about promiscuous sexual situations will never give any proper "tool" to anyone putting herself in these types of situations.

    All they do is serve to confuse what is really a non- confusing issue when you steer of the whole philosophy or situation.

    You seem to be interested in only asking the "problem realm" questions or only dealing with the weaker option (the immoral option, being that you are Christian) with the wrong philosophy underneath it all.

    I have no idea why you won't admit these videos are dippy and potentially harmful, even apart from Christianity.

    I'm gonna get out of my own way now, because there are only so many layers of ridiculousness that I can peel back and have you refute on weak grounds in these kinds of 'chase my tail' discussions without seeing it all as fruitless.

    Have a good Friday.

    ReplyDelete
  99. "I do not want to minimize date rape or ignore what it's like to feel so little of yourself that you end up in situations that are devastating."

    Can some one tell me how this is not deeply misogynistic? Feel so little of yourself that u put yourself a situation where someone might not honor your consent? You mean like a date.

    Nubby, once again that advice( maybe) holds true for strangers at the bar. Telling girls not to get into any ambiguous sexual situations is just telling them to avoid sexual situations that they might actually want to engage in because they MIGHT get raped / have their wishes ignored, is terrible. Again if women should fear men this much we should be a lot more anti-men than we are.

    If we are going to focus on teaching our daughters something ( who by the way aren't going home en masse with men who are complete strangers, why not teach them.

    If you are becoming physical faster than you'd like or he is initiating sex acts you don't feel comfortable with firmly tell him firmly no ( don't feel its awkward or bitchy to exert your boundries

    If he doesn't hear you or doesn't listen say it again

    If he persists and ignores your wishes, when he leaves CALL THE POLICE because he has seuxally assaulted you

    don't you think it would be better if we taught our daughters that as opposed, why were you in his room in the first placr

    ReplyDelete
  100. I was trying to read through all of the comments without saying anything, but I just cant. There's this, for instance:

    "How dare you, and I mean how dare you insinuate the notion that failure to do these things mean you are giving someone permission to rape you.This is digusting and wrong( I already said that, but worth saying again). Secondly, why on earth do you assume things these also aren't being done, the presumption here is ridiculous"

    CS, I can't believe the way you see women! Females, in your mind, are apparently sniveling, defenseless little people. How dare Nubby? Gosh, CS, how dare you have such a low opinion of women? You play an incredible blame game with men, as though we are powerless, and it is insulting. Don't you see for yourself what a ridiculously low opinion you have of women?

    ReplyDelete
  101. Again if women should fear men this much we should be a lot more anti-men than we are

    ? Why do we have to be anti-men? Why can't we just be smart up front? How about we just be anti-stupid and not anti-people?

    You don't know what his intentions are, good or evil, even if it's assumed you're both on the same page. Put the flame down before you find out, Right or Wrong?

    Being hateful of him from the go, and then going to sleep with him is just dumb. It's beyond idiotic. "I hate you, men, because I fear you, but I may want to try some sexual stuff with you, regardless. I'm okay with promiscuous situations because I got these swell communication tools from PP videos to whip out and apply at any time, so we can cheapen this whole experience as much as we want, despite my hatred and fear of you. Yea, I'm brilliant and fully equipped." Uh, just no.

    Telling girls not to get into any ambiguous sexual situations is just telling them to avoid sexual situations that they might actually want to engage in because they MIGHT get raped / have their wishes ignored, is terrible.

    And that’s “terrible” in your book?
    Terrible? Huh. That's weird. Strong word.
    I was given just that exact advice. Actually. By a man. By several men. By men that cared about me enough to dispense something as “terrible” as,

    “Hey, don’t go back home with any guys. You know what they’re thinking of getting.” Even if he was a decent guy. Even if there was already some trust there. The message was: Don't be easy for him, if you go back with him, he's thinking of you as easy. No need to sugar coat it. Even if not easy, he won't respect you for going back with him. If you want his respect lay down your own ground rules by teaching him how to treat you before any physical anything.

    I took their advice to heart, actually. Wasn't “terrible” advice at all, it was protective and clear and I appreciated the reinforcement.

    Why are you all for PP videos that promote unsafe situations for women, uncomfortable situations for women, and sin and disease for all?

    ReplyDelete
  102. Ha, Sharon. I asked her what her opinion of women was. I also asked for a hard number as far as percentage of responsibility of going back to his place goes. Apparently women are weak and not to have responsibility because there's sexual stuff we want to do with men we should hate. Shhure.

    ReplyDelete
  103. The times I didn't heed that warning, I found myself needing to make a hasty exit. PP acts like it just rolls right off the tongue and it's all about technique and clear conversation. Um, no. Bad move by me. Bad read. Bad gamble. Bad assumptions. Bad all the way through. It's not always just on the guys.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Sharon,

    What are you talking about???? I said if a woman goes home with a man she is not consenting to anything she doesn't consent to. That is it. How is it assuming that women are sniveling or weak. As a woman if someone is doing something you do not like, tell them, men if a woman tells you do stop doing something STOP.

    what is anti-men or weak willed about that

    ReplyDelete
  105. "As a woman if someone is doing something you do not like, tell them, men if a woman tells you do stop doing something STOP."

    CS, we all agreed to that no-brainer a LONG, LONG time ago in this convo. The rest of the stuff is what is just mind-boggling to some of us. Where is common sense?

    And if you could tell me how a Christian can be grateful for an organization founded to rebel against Christ and virtue, I'd love to hear how you reconcile the two. Serious question.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Nubby,

    I said and let me be clear because you keep distorting my words.

    Most of the men that you know well enough to go home with including your boyfriend the first time you sleep with him, you assume he is not a rapist. That is a very low and very standard opinion.

    IF women SHOULD fear going home with men to the extent that you think they should to avoid getting raped. THEN it logically follows that we should be a lot more anti-men because apparently men are rapist and apparently men are bad. I don't think men are eaither. I just think we've spend centuries selling men some madona-whore complex and that the women they go home with are somehow less deserving of having their sexual boundaries respected.

    Women are not hateful of men nor should they be nor need they be. We just need to help men on the consent issues. That's it.

    ReplyDelete
  107. "Don't be easy for him, if you go back with him, he's thinking of you as easy. No need to sugar coat it. Even if not easy, he won't respect you for going back with him. If you want his respect lay down your own ground rules by teaching him how to treat you before any physical anything.

    YOU ARE NOT BEING EASY 'FOR HIM. YOU ARE ENGAGING OR BEING OPEN TO SEX THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE. WOMEN ARE NOT OBJECTS. HER WANTING TO SLEEP WITH YOU DOES NOT MAKE HER MORE OF AN OBJECT. TEACH MEN TO RESPECT ALL WOMEN AND THAT HER WORTHINESS AND RESPECT FACTOR DOES NOT LIE BETWEEN HER LEGS

    ReplyDelete
  108. YOU ARE NOT BEING EASY 'FOR HIM. YOU ARE ENGAGING OR BEING OPEN TO SEX THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE.

    Right. I'm being easy. Like I said.
    Certainly not making him work for it, am I? That's called easy. The opposite of difficult.

    WOMEN ARE NOT OBJECTS. HER WANTING TO SLEEP WITH YOU DOES NOT MAKE HER MORE OF AN OBJECT. TEACH MEN TO RESPECT ALL WOMEN AND THAT HER WORTHINESS AND RESPECT FACTOR DOES NOT LIE BETWEEN HER LEGS

    The only way to 'make him respect women' is to make him work for it. This is not an unknown mystery of the universe. I mean, the power doesn't come from wanting to have sex or in having sex with men, the power and respect is shown in harnessing that.

    You've been deluded if you think sex=power for women, CS. hahahaha sorry. We've been over this a million times with you on here. I gotta split for good now. It's preposterous territory now. No can do. I'm going to stare at some improper fractions problems, just for thought that makes sense...

    ReplyDelete
  109. My mind is imploding.

    I need to go run in the grass, smell the roses outside, feel the wind on my face.

    Lord, have mercy. We have really messed up your world.

    ReplyDelete
  110. For newer readers, I want to add this: Years ago I asked CS (when she was still in college) to ask her female friends if there was any down side to the hook-up culture. She surveyed them and came back with the answer that no... they could not see a downside -- except for the constant sobbing.

    Dear Lord, please, help our daughters see the truth and embrace it. We have a generation of misery, and it's so easily fixed by simply embracing your Truths. Peace and JOY for the taking. My God, I've lived both sides of this issue, and the difference between them is MIND-BLOWING.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Leila,

    Common sense says don't go home with someone you think will not respect your boundaries and wishes. I agree. If you go home with someone and they do not respect your boundries and wishes, communicate that and press charges if necessary.

    You seem to think the problem is that we have a generation of women going home with men they believe are generally trustworthy

    I think the problem is that we have a generation of men who've been taught that rape is bad, but their rapey behaviors constitute foul play, and apparently women in their rooms are down for whatever. These guys aren't even bad we've just culturally fed them that, but we can feed them something else.

    Teach women to speak up
    Teach men to respect boundaries, have more considerate sex and that all women, even the 'slutty ones' aren't objects

    Now thats common sense

    ReplyDelete
  112. "have more considerate sex"

    How does one sugar coat the ugliness of sin? I don't know how to tell women to commit immorality more "considerately". It's not even in my lexicon.

    "all women, even the 'slutty ones' aren't objects"

    Do you think the men are having sex with the women because they "love" them and want to give themselves to them fully? If not, guess what? They are using the women as objects. Even if they are super nice about it. That's just a fact, and even woman knows it, even after a "nice" sexual encounter.

    How does your gratitude for PP fit in with your love of Christ?

    ReplyDelete
  113. And OF COURSE women are not objects to be used! Even the "slutty" ones as you say! That is what we and the Church have been saying all along!! We are the ONLY ones who say it!

    ReplyDelete
  114. CS, when I get through with all of the comments I will quote every time I read what you say and think, my gosh, this woman thinks females are ninnies. I have thought it many times before when I've read your comments on The Bubble, and I see you still see things the same way. I hope that as I read these comments, I will see that you answered Leila's question regarding virtue. Virtue is empowering. So many women avoid the situations you talk about by not putting themselves in close proximity to those situations. That doesn't protect them (or anyone) from every dangerous situation, but it keeps them from so many that you bring up. And yet you act as though women are powerless to avoid the situations.

    I hope you also have addressed virtue and men. Yes, yes, yes. We need to teach men to be virtuous. I hope you don't think that those PP videos fill that need. Virtue isn't PP's game. Virtue would help all involved, yet it's not what Planned Parenthood has any interest in. Virtue would hurt their bottom line.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Sharon,

    you misunderstand then. I don't think women are powerless. I do not believe your going to a dorm room with a frat boy 'because you can't help your self. I believe you are going to a dorm room with a frat boy because you want to. And because you believe it is a generally safe thing to do. While I've never done it, at my college it was a close knit community and it was a generally safe thing to do, so I'm not going to pretend thats a generally stupid conclusion.

    If a woman were to feel that she couldn't go to a frat house because the men had a history of assaulting women or pushing non agreed upon acts. We might temporarily say, hey girls don't go to that house, but the goal would be to disband the frat and kick them off campus, that is what people would rally around.

    Of course you can avoid that frat or all frats or leaving your house at all, your not too stupid to do those things. but you don't have to. You shouldn't have to. Expecting not to be raped and generally respected by people you know is reasonable. It isn't your fault if someone fails to respect a boundary you established

    ReplyDelete
  116. CS,

    I think your heart is in the right place. But I don't believe your solution will work. Culture cannot override biology.

    Men are risk-takers, they push boundaries. They do it in all parts of their lives and women encourage it. Even in relationships. Women often complain about waiting for the guy to finally "make a move" Women reward men who take charge and who take risks.

    That doesn't mean they are correct to ignore a no. As we all have said multiple times in this thread. But it happens. It is wrong, it is awful but it happens. A lot more than you think. A lot more.

    So as you are making yourself hoarse insisting guys should be more considerate your friends are giggling when a guy takes a chance and moves to second base or beyond.

    Feel free to educate the boys. Just don't be too shocked when it doesn't work.

    ReplyDelete
  117. "How does one sugar coat the ugliness of sin? I don't know how to tell women to commit immorality more "considerately". It's not even in my lexicon."

    That's fine, but then you leave everyone to the likes of PP. Your ignoring the questions asked because you don't like them, which is fine but then you concede that you cannot help people.

    I think we've been over, how I don't think the general views here are particularly good or christian or godly and I appreciate PP because I think the Christian thing to do is help people where they are. I find the general way women are talked about in regard to sex here generally deplorable and paternalistic as if there is no difference between a respectful casual relation ship and a deeply disrespectful one, 'because you're an object in both, or 'that if you think so low of yourself that you find yourself in a position to be taken advantage of, I'm still reeling from that. There are gradients in life. Best, better, good, and bad choices, When people don't want to make the best choices be need to help them make better or good choices.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Sharon,

    "That doesn't mean they are correct to ignore a no. As we all have said multiple times in this thread. But it happens. It is wrong, it is awful but it happens. A lot more than you think. A lot more."

    It doesn't happen more than I think because I've seen it happen a bunch! But the question is, in this situation, what should we do? Do you think that if we encouraged women to report this kind of thing we'd see a difference. Do you think men would take this risk less ( ignoring no's which we both agrees happen a lot) if they knew the risk was well risky.

    No one is suggesting to penalize men for wanting to make advances but if they make advances and ignore the feedback shouldn't there be consequences?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Also, not related Leila...
    I was watching the John Oliver Show and they had story on Land's End and your facebook comment was briefly featured. haha

    ReplyDelete
  120. Wow! I read most of the comments, and sorry to go back but I am seriously SHOCKED at some of the things I read!

    CS, you said: "As I have pointed out, everything at some point is a hook up, even what turns out to be most marriages."

    How can you say that "everything" is at some point a hookup????? Is it just because this is what you *mostly* see? Even if that might be the *majority* of relationships (and/or future marriages), it doesn't make it ALL of them...

    I should know, I'm married. My husband and I never "hooked up". We weren't "dating" either. What's even the point of a "hook up" or "dating"? I'm not asking this question out to demean you or anyone, CS, I'm genuinely curious. I'm 20, going 21, and I never, ever, ever understood the whole concept/point of "dating" (or "hooking up" as they say). Why have a relationship if you're not serious from the very beginning about getting married and having a family together? And how do you expect a hook-up/date to turn into a long-lasting, caring, loving, marriage (or "relationship")? That doesn't sound reasonnable to me. If you're gonna be with someone just because, or maily because, of physical/sexual "attraction", then you are basically using them for your own pleasure...so how can you expect them not to use you?!

    This is why the high divorce rate, etc. People expect those things coming out of a "hook up". It's the norm. It's no wonder most relationships turn into relationSINK. It just seems so obvious to me, and always has seemed so obvious, that I seriously don't understand how anyone (how most people my generation) can see it any other way. What you said about "everything" being a hook up at some point is deeply disturbing to me. No kidding. Yet I'm not religious...and I did observe a lot of relationships.

    My husband and I didn't experience any sort of sexual attraction towards each other when we knew we would get married (we don't experience any sort of sexual attraction towards other people, either, if that explains anything, but that's not the point). No physical attraction either. We knew we would get married because we got to know each other. We shared the same values. Viewed our future the same ways. Had roughly the same ideas on family and other things. We talked about that even before meeting face-to-face, and within 4 weeks of talking online. It just seemed normal to us, if you're going to consider a relationship or marriage together, to talk about those things. Most people nowadays would say that it is "too much too soon"...What are they looking for??? What are they expecting of their partner if not someone who's on the same page about AT LEAST those FUNDAMENTAL things? Why even bother trying to "be with someone" before even knowing their thoughts on those very important things? What's the point? Again, I seriously don't get it.

    Yes, I went to my husband's house before we got married...But not only did we know we wanted to get married, I was also traveling. I came back to his area to meet him. Didn't have anywhere else to stay. It's not like I could get to know him and then go back home. I also got to know his family since he lives with his parents. Yes, "lives", and I don't, because we're not allowed by immigration laws to live together, least he should have a higher income or we could find a US resident who meets the income requirements and could co-sponsor me. We are both pretty "low-class" and yet we sacrifice even more, financially, legally, mentally, emotionally, for our marriage and our (future) family. I have to endure the pain of sustaining myself, being away from both my family and my husband, or living with roommates as a single woman despite being married, of loosing money by having to sustain our separate lives (2 rents, 2 grocery bills, etc).

    ReplyDelete
  121. Many people tell me to give up, or that it's not worth it, or that I should "find someone who lives here", but most everyone hasn't received revelations and signs like I did before meeting my husband (including but not only, having visions of him in my dreams that manifested in real life). "Attraction" or anything else that causes a "hookup" was never a part of the equation...NEVER. I don't even understand how anyone could even "hook up", "date", or whatever, and hope for it to become serious, rather than being serious from the beginning and making sure the other person is on the same page. It's just waiting for a disaster to happen...or a relation-ship to sink. It's a concept that is, and always been, so foreign to me, even though my parents would sometimes ask me if I had "a guy in mind" or "a boyfriend". I also never liked the word "boyfriend", especially to describe my husband before we got married when I would clearly present him as my fiance. The only reason we didn't get married before is the laws. As a Canadian citizen I wasn't allowed to get married to a US citizen in the US least we should pay 1500$ for a fiance visa (which we coudn't afford) and for which we weren't even eligible anyways due to my husband's low income. I see a lot of folks around my age finding excuses like "when I finish studying" or "when I have a stable job" or "we need more money". My husband is still finishing high school because he didn't get the chance to before (transportation issues), neither of us have a "career", and we're both so poor we can't even live together because that would be against the immigration laws. None of our family could be there, either, again because of financial issues (and geographical problems as well as the laws in one of my previous home province, where I grew up and where my family members still live). Heck we couldn't even afford a dress or a suit (not that we wanted that kind of "wedding" anyways). None of that stopped us.

    So, if people want something serious...why do they even hook-up? And if they are in a "serious relationship"...why don't they want to be married???? I know people who have been girlfriend and boyfriend for decades...have a house, children, etc. I can't wrap my head around why they wouldn't want to be husband and wife. I also can't wrap my head around why people would hook-up, hoping their "partner" won't use them for pleasure when they, themselves, use their partner to satisfy their desires. Or at least this is how I see it, please correct me if I'm wrong, but when people hook-up, as far as I'm concerned, they don't really take the time to actually KNOW the person and evaluate whether their values, their goals/dreams in life, and the way they see family, etc. is compatible. I can't understand any of that culture.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Now that I read all the comments I will just add this:
    There is nothing wrong with not answering the questions asked if the questions themselves are either illogical or immoral.

    For example: "What's the size of the color blue?"
    Or: "How to murder someone without making a mess/getting caught?"
    Those questions don't, or shouldn't require an actual answer.

    I do not see pre-marital sex as immoral per se (and there is a difference between a hookup/date/boyfriend who doesn't want to marry you or say it's too soon to think of that, and someone with whom you're nearly married). I also see casual sex as foolish and mostly wrong, because it disconnects sex and procreation (of course, that applies also to contraceptives, regardless if the partners are married or not).

    But, if we admit that pre-marital sex is unacceptable, then it logically follows that we shouldn't answer the question of how to have it "more safely". The same way we shoudn't answer the question on how to murder someone, but instead we should point out that murder is wrong, ask "why do you want to commit murder?", and come up with solutions to help the person who asks the question not to commit murder. In that sense, I totally understand why Catholics (and non-Catholics who share the same views) would not answer the question asked by PP, and ask other questions instead.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Dear Jezabel,

    I think your last paragraph sums it up perfectly. May you have a long and fruitful marriage!

    ReplyDelete
  124. Jezabel

    "I don't even understand how anyone could even "hook up", "date", or whatever, and hope for it to become serious, rather than being serious from the beginning"

    How can marry someone that you've never spent any time with? I think of "dating" as something a couple does after they first meet or after they've decided they're interested in having a relationship. I don't agree with the idea of "hook ups" but dates don't have to include sex. I don't get it. Unless someone wants an arranged marriage where they meet their spouse on their wedding day, why would you not want to date?

    ReplyDelete
  125. In that sense, I totally understand why Catholics (and non-Catholics who share the same views) would not answer the question asked by PP, and ask other questions instead.

    I would clarify that it’s not that Catholics aren’t answering the question, it’s that the question itself (any question CS wants to ask to defend promiscuous sexual interaction) is wrong because it’s not useful to remedy anything.

    We use the Five Why’s method used in business protocol all the time.
    Gets right to point (or close enough) in five why's alone. Back up five times and get the solution as you backtrack.

    Why did that happen?
    Because of this.
    Then why did that happen?
    Because of that. Etc.

    Back pedal at least “five whys”.

    You get to the point where you see the real solution (or get very close to seeing it), because you’ve backed up far enough to get to the real fix. This is common practice in the business sector. It's used constantly in trouble-shooting. CS doesn’t see it because she’s fixated on defending the problem itself.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Michelle, thank you! We strive hard every day to even hate the legal right to live together, in the same country, under the same roof -- something most people take for granted. But this is what the essence of a marriage is. To fight together and for each other and our future family, to work hard, and to sacrifice all that ought to be sacrificed.

    Johanne, then you must be referring to something like being friends? That's how I would describe what happens between "meeting first" and the marriage/the decision to get married. I wouldn't call it "dating",or at least, not the way I (we) would/did it.

    As I said, I was travelling when we first met face-to-face, so it is a situation much different than it is for the vast, vast majority of other people.

    We talked online for approximately 5 weeks before we met face-to-face, but at that point (before meeting off line), it was already clear that we wanted -- HAD TO -- get married. But we weren't "in a relationsip" or anything, at that point, because we had to make sure we could get along in real life as well as we did online.

    Then, I came back to Central California to meet him (I was in WA state just before that). We spent 5 days together at his and hiss parents house, or at least that was the plan (kind of), but then I went on my way south, and when I noticed I had forgotten something at his place, I had no choice but to buy him tickets and have him bring to me what I forgot. So I bought him Amtrak tickets, waited for him for hours at the station in Grover Beach CA with a dead phone, but thankfully, the next departure from where he was was the same day and so he arrived in the evening.

    Then we ended up going to his grandma in the Long Beach area and we stayed there about 3 weeks.

    Then I had to go back to Canada for my summer job. Since then I've been kind of going back and forth, and "living" in different Canadian provinces due to my complex circumstances.

    But, as I said, the whole marriage thing was already self-evident before we met face-to-face, after we have talked for 5 weeks online. We could keep a conversation going no problem, which is extremely rare for both of us, we had the same values and we had already talked about religions, politics, family, education, how we see our future, etc. That's just the normal thing to do if you plan on engaging in a "relationship", or at least, it SHOULD be the normal thing to do rather than focusing on "attraction" (wtv that means) and hoping it will work out when you didn't even assess your values then find out you're not compatible (or or not willing to work together) which creates familial messes.

    ReplyDelete
  127. However, there is one other thing that makes our situation different, except for me traveling. It's very hard to explain, but as I said we HAD TO get married, not only as per our own will but that was God's message sent to us trough different ways. I won't elaborate on all the signs right now because that's not the point, but for example, I had visions of my husband in my dream when I was about 15 years old, he'd keep reappearing and I knew that I knew him, but in the dream I realized I didn't know his name (yet)! One of the visions I had in my dreams came true, others are symbolic (he saved me from a fire which I would describe as looking like a "hellfire"), and others will, God willing, come true. Also when I was about 15, I got a revelation about his name. I tried to deny it but now I realize it was foolish...the revelation kept reaffirming itself to me, and it was right.

    Now, I think we can agree, most people don't have those visions, those signs (which I don't want to extrapolate on right now), those revelations about their future spouse. They don't instantly KNOW when they've just talked with someone for a few weeks. They can't plan to go to someone's house for 5 days without even confirming it (verbally) clearly. Yes, when I went to his house, none of us confirmed I was going to. Of course it was brought up as a possibility, but never confirmed by either of us. He did ask his parents (who agreed to me staying there), and he made me one of my favorite foods before I arrived, but never confirmed me that, yes, I can stay there for 5 days. And I never asked him a 2nd time if I could. yet it was so evident for both of us that we, in fact, DIDN'T need to confirm.

    See, small things like that, too. Most everyone isn't blessed with this kind of connection, where you can just agree to things without verbally confirming/agreeing. And most everyone isn't blessed to have such a connection that they can relieve each other of their physical pains even thousands of miles apart, but we can.

    Our union is different, even people who have been married for decades and have children laugh/don't believe me when I talk about my husband being able to relieve my physical pain when he's in California and I'm in Montreal, or in Vancouver BC. But he can, trough meditation and trough God. Since our union is different, of course the "mechanisms" of it will be vastly different than for most other marriages or relationships. But I can't explain it in a way that you (or anyone) would totally understand, it is something not to be explained but to be lived. However very few people are blessed this way. I've yet to meet any except us.

    And that's why what doesn't make sense to you is self-evident to us. We didn't enter this marriage only out of our free will, that's not to say part of us didn't want to, or that it was arranged, on the contrary, but it is to say that it was a strong intuition of not only wanting, but HAVING to, and now I would say, as part of God's plan. It is also reflected in the obstacles we face, which are not only legal, financial, and emotional (being forced to live separately and spend even more money that we barely have, least we should break the laws to live together, is painful in so many ways), but we have also faced evil spiritual forces that tried to tear us apart. It wasn't human, and it wasn't normal. Now why would those evil forces (or demons so to speak) try to tear us apart if we were not a manifestation of God's plan? And how else to explain those signs, visions, and revelations that we both received at different times including before even meeting online?

    That's why we fight so hard, and that's why we do things differently. I am reminded everyday that the greatest battles are to be fought by the greatest and most courageous and endurant soldiers, and the greater the combat, the most glorious the victory.

    ReplyDelete
  128. I agree with Leila and Nubby that women shouldn't put themselves in bad situations. Although in today's atmosphere, the bad situations may not appear bad until you are attacked.

    I agree with CS that you should be able to get it on with a guy, be completely naked and change your mind without anything further happening and the guy is raping you if he doesn't stop. (Leila, I apologize for being gross on your blog but I want to be clear what I mean.)

    I think some people are naive on exactly what is going on. There is a big problem with date rape on college campuses. I'm all up in it with both my daughter and sons because they are in college or will be starting in September.

    We just got the dorm info for the one who will be a sophomore in September. One of the options is sharing a room with someone of the opposite sex. This is where we are. Parents footing the bill so their 19 year old can sleep with their boyfriend. Obviously not my kids, but there's enough people that want it that it's an option.

    As CS pointed out, you have to meet people where they are. If people are having sex, then I want them to know what consent means. I want girls to know they have the right to change their mind and or say no at any point. I want boys to know that they are raping a girl if she has said no or no more or she's changed her mind. The videos do a good job with examples of what consent is. They include gay people because they need to know what consent is too.

    While we carry on about how immoral the world is and how terrible it is that people are having pre-marital sex, the sex goes on. Talking about it here isn't going to make these people stop. Like it or not, Planned Parenthood is a resource for these people and I'm glad they have something. They aren't reaching out to churches for guidance and the churches aren't reaching them. It isn't realistic to teach abstinence only when kids are living in co-ed dorm rooms with their parents permission when they are 19 years old.

    ReplyDelete
  129. LizaMoore,

    ?? I am not naive at all. LOL
    I don’t disagree that it’s a reality that people are promiscuous. At all.
    And I don’t disagree that a “No further” uttered from a naked woman (half naked or fully) with a guy should be respected. At all.

    I am not sure what the issue is with CS’s interpretation of my own stance on this, or with your comment here-- that you think that Leila and I are not hearing these two things. If you agree with CS on those things, then you agree with Leila and I, too, because we already see those things. It’s never been otherwise.

    I see A. I see B. There is no misunderstanding, misconception, or prudish delusion going on in my brain. LOL I see the reality. In fact, I personally lived it. "Party hard" was our motto and mission. I have “lived freely, modernly, and independently” and have seen and done a lot more in life than CS at her age, from the sounds of it—that’s not a condescension or brag—it’s fact.

    So then in that regard my experience trumps all that CS wants to defend with this ridiculous PP philosophy, because whereas she hasn’t lived it, she defends it. Yet I have lived it and I see what a cluster it is.

    So, understand that those concepts are all alive and well in my brain (and Leila gets it too, it’s not lost on her, either), as far as “seeing the reality of promiscuity” goes. Can we set this down now?

    Now take this whole idea of “meeting people where they’re at” doesn’t mean we say, “We’ll give you this unhelpful video tool and lesson plan so that you can stay ‘here’.”

    There’s no strategy involved with those tools to get anyone to a better place. They only keep people ‘where they are’.

    The point is to lift people out and up for a truer understanding of happiness. To give them a map: You Are Here. Where you need to get to is There, way up and out of this puddle where you think you’re splashing for fun but you’re drowning.

    If we want to address the problem of consent, CS, then we zoom-out and view the whole scenario. We can only fix the problem when we see the components that go into the problem.

    Again, see the “Five Whys” trouble-shooting technique. See the wider context, don’t just say, “Well, here we are. Guess we’ll just root around in this mess, since it’s where we are.” No.

    Back out, back up, look at all the cords that plug into that outlet. Start unplugging those so that there’s not an overload. Get a better view, change the outlook.

    And as far as CS is concerned, she’s a Christian for God’s sake. This all should be revolting to her. Not something worthy of cheerleading.

    ReplyDelete
  130. If people are going in the wrong direction, we shouldn't encourage them to go forward. Instead, we should explain to them why going that way is destructive and show them a better direction.

    And what about the procreative aspect of sex??? How come it is not mentioned even ONCE in the videos, or in any PP resource, or any sex ed? Why don't we teach teens to have sex if they're ready for and/or AT LEAST open to pregnancy and parenthood? While procreation isn't the only purpose for sex, it is certainly the main one and cannot be disconnected completely. Just like the main purpose of foods is to nourish your body...not pleasure or socializing. Hence its unhealthy to eat only for pleasure or social reasons, instead of eating a healthy diet to nourish our bodies. Similarly, it is unhealthy to have sexual intercourse while trying to completely disconnect it from procreation.

    Why encourage people to continue having sex "safely" and "with consent" just because it's happening? Should we also encourage murder if, somehow, it became a societal norm to kill people, and most people had the urge to commit murder? It doesn't make any sense. Just because we're going into a hole doesn't mean we should dig deeper.

    ReplyDelete
  131. If people are going in the wrong direction, we shouldn't encourage them to go forward. Instead, we should explain to them why going that way is destructive and show them a better direction.

    And what about the procreative aspect of sex??? How come it is not mentioned even ONCE in the videos, or in any PP resource, or any sex ed? Why don't we teach teens to have sex if they're ready for and/or AT LEAST open to pregnancy and parenthood? While procreation isn't the only purpose for sex, it is certainly the main one and cannot be disconnected completely. Just like the main purpose of foods is to nourish your body...not pleasure or socializing. Hence its unhealthy to eat only for pleasure or social reasons, instead of eating a healthy diet to nourish our bodies. Similarly, it is unhealthy to have sexual intercourse while trying to completely disconnect it from procreation.

    Why encourage people to continue having sex "safely" and "with consent" just because it's happening? Should we also encourage murder if, somehow, it became a societal norm to kill people, and most people had the urge to commit murder? It doesn't make any sense. Just because we're going into a hole doesn't mean we should dig deeper.

    ReplyDelete
  132. That dorm info is no different than when I shared a co-ed floor. Constantly in guys' rooms. Guys in girls rooms. It's just how it is on campus and it's all the more reason to educate against PP's philosophy. There is no safety net there.

    ReplyDelete
  133. We had co-ed dorms but sharing a room with a boyfriend was not an option and wasn't an option at any college that I knew about.

    These people don't want to change. Why would they when they don't see anything wrong with casual sex. It's normal to them. PP's philosophy isn't why casual sex is acceptable as normal behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Sharing a room is not a whole world of difference, IMO. It's just par for the course. And that's the point. The whole philosophy encourages immoral and dangerous situations. That's the blatant reality. So now we'll have more instances of on-campus rape added to date-rape because the bf/gf living together adds a whole new world of potential danger-- going "home" together back to the dorm after a party where you got drunk and started to argue... We'll have a new category even: Dorm-room rape. Because now they're sharing a room, but no one bats an eye at the whole philosophy that this is wrong-headed to begin with simply because "we need to meet them where they are". Rubbish.

    PP's philosophy isn't causing this behavior, but it sure full-on endorses it. And we all know why. Their business is $$$. Abortions. One clinic alone made $15k/mo. on that "reproductive female service" alone. Sick.

    The idea is to get people to take a real look at what PP is-- as an actual 'service provider' and what it rakes in as a business, based on the main service of abortion which is their cash cow; and then maybe people will connect the dots for the first time in their life, that the PP videos aren't exactly 'helpful' after all.

    Then from there, people might actually think about the philosophy underneath all of that, and see that for what it is, to boot. And the hope is that they will back away, taking their wallets and morals with them.

    ReplyDelete
  135. LizaMoore, your comment sounds a lot like the, "If they are going to do (immoral, evil act) anyway, let's at least make it easier for them to do (immoral, evil act) more safely.

    How well has that worked for our young kids? Gosh, they were saying that when I was in college! I was much worse in many ways than CS, and I knew better! Somehow, by lifting the bar and raising my kids in the Faith, they were able to attend big (massive) leftist public universities and keep their purity. There were many who do and did.

    It would never in my parenting life occur to me to say, "Well, I know that it could send you to the pits of temporal misery or even to actual hell (or your friends) to do x,y, and z, but thank God there are entities like Planned Parenthood who teach these you guys how to do these self-destructive things more safely! We have to meet you guys where you are, after all. All the cool parents are allowing it, and you might just fall into it, too."

    Oh, dear Lord, how did we get here?

    And to say that PP's philosophy is not why casual sex is acceptable.... Did you know that Margaret Sanger started her contraception revolution precisely because she was a promiscuous adulterer and she wanted to throw off the morality of the day? That was the founder of PP, when it was considered scandalous to be promiscuous, adulterous, or even use contraception. She flew under the banner of "no gods, no masters" (look it up).

    I see more and more why we are in this mess. At the core, I don't think that a lot of Catholics, even those who go to church, actually believe that an eternity in hell is a possibility for either themselves (as parents accountable before God) or their children (who are toying with mortal sin). And I think that many Catholics believe that while there might be some short term problem with falling into this sort of stuff (like on the super cool videos), it's all going to be fine in the end when they finally have committed marriages and families, as if none of this will affect their future chance at a solid, faithful, healthy marriage that lasts.

    LizaMoore, do you agree that it would be better for us and our children to die rather than willfully commit a mortal sin against God?

    ReplyDelete
  136. By the way, in my "Catholic" university, in the mid to late 1980s, everyone's boyfriends always stayed overnight in the rooms. No biggie. All.the.time. Now you are saying the parents are on board with it, and the university admins. Well, that's just more culpability on them, I guess. Sad, but not something we would accept, but rather something we should be vocally AGAINST.

    ReplyDelete
  137. I'm huge into the college scene too. My fourth child is about to leave in the fall for yet another large, public university. I have no fears for him, honestly, because he gets it. And I did not fear for my other three. I knew them and I knew what they believed, and why. I hate what goes on on those campuses, but it's not inevitable by any means. Even in my day, there were "good kids". I was not one of them, but of course it was possible!

    Don't succumb, LizaMoore. I was never a "realist", wanting to keep the bar low so that they would be "safe". I told my kids straight up: You can certainly use your free will against God and yourself, but my gosh, you are going going to find yourself in a world of hurt, things that can never be taken back. Not once did I say, "If you do have sex, please make sure you are protected!" In fact, if I had done that, they would have been horrified and wondered what the hell happened to their mom?! They probably would have seen the world as a free fall, built on sand at that point.

    Kids will rise or fall based on the bar we set for them and our expectations of goodness. And it works! I've watched it now with each of the first five kids as they've grown past adolescence, and four now into adulthood. It's not a pipe dream. Might a kid go off the deep end? Of course! But I'll be damned (literally) if it happens because of me.

    ReplyDelete
  138. "I think some people are naive on exactly what is going on."

    Who is it that you think is naive? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Nubby,

    How am I misconstruing your stance?

    If you agree with this:

    "I don’t disagree that a “No further” uttered from a naked woman (half naked or fully) with a guy should be respected. At all."

    How does that align with this?

    "If we want to address the problem of consent, CS, then we zoom-out and view the whole scenario. We can only fix the problem when we see the components that go into the problem."

    Once we have identified the problem ( a man not respecting a woman's wishes/body) shouldn't we be answering the question, why does this man/ others like him not respect womens' bodies? isn't that the 5 steps back we want to take

    ReplyDelete
  140. There are gradients in life. You don't need to encourage excess in order to show people that even within the realm of bad decision making some decisions are better than others.

    In high school, It was made clear to me that drinking wasn't good, that getting drunk was worst, that getting drunk and driving was worst than that. It was made clear to me that while I shouldn't drink I really shouldn't smoke pot and I especially shouldn't inject herione. There were good decisions, bad decisions, worst decisions, and god-awful decisions. And while my parents never condoned underaged drinking, they most certainly preferred that I had a couple of beers on occasion (which I sometimes did) to my having a couple of shots often and drinking and driving( which I never did. That is a pretty common theme among parents.

    I don't think you need to 'least common denominator' this and encourage every single bout of promiscuity. But I do think that a good, bad, worst, terrible, delineations would help people. Its true that people can rise up to challenges, but abstaining from sex until marriage, isn't a challenge we encourage people to take on because we (cultural we) don't see the value of it. Our kids could marry younger and wait until marriage, but they don't want to, and we don't want them too. it is no longer a collective value we have, which does a lot to explain why we don't achieve it. If we want to bring this value back, we have to transition people out of it. We have to share some of their priorities, and we have to give them roadmaps if they fail. But trying to make people go cold turkey and not preparing them for b,c, and d scenarios, we wouldn't be helping anyone

    ReplyDelete
  141. Q: Why does this man/others like him not respect women's bodies?
    A: Because those men want to have sex with those women, and they don't control themselves.

    Q: Why don't they control themselves?
    A: Because they were taught that sex is something to be obtained for the sake of pleasure, and because they are sold sex as a commodity, rather than as a potentially life-creating act.

    Q: Why were they taught that sex is to be obtained only for the sake of pleasure, and sold sex as a commodity?
    A: Because, as a society, we have disconnected sex from procreation entirely, and many companies, including PP, gain profit trough promiscuous behaviors.

    Q: Why have we, as a society, disconnected sex from procreation, and why do companies gain profits from that?
    A: We have disconnected sex from procreation because we seek its pleasurable aspect and desire it, and seek pleasure, even if we aren't open to Life. We have also created artificial means of separating sex from procreation, such as contraceptions and abortion. Companies gain profits from that because the desire for sexual contact stems from the need, as a whole [i.e. humanity, not individuals], to procreate.

    Q: Why do we seek the pleasure emerging from the procreative act, even if we don't want to, and are not open, to procreation?
    Now, I can't answer that question, because this is something I've never understood myself, and quite frankly it confuses me.

    But the picture is pretty clear to me. It all boils down to perverting sex, i.e. to disconnecting its intended and natural purpose and consequence: Creating Life.

    ReplyDelete
  142. CS! I agree with this!!
    it is no longer a collective value we have, which does a lot to explain why we don't achieve it. If we want to bring this value back, we have to transition people out of it. We have to share some of their priorities, and we have to give them roadmaps if they fail. But trying to make people go cold turkey and not preparing them for b,c, and d scenarios, we wouldn't be helping anyone

    Yes, yes, and yes!! And hence why I'm such a proponent not of comprehensive sex ed, nor or abstinence-only sex ed, but of chastity-comprehensive sex ed --> introducing to teens and even adults the beautiful, life-giving reasons for waiting until marriage and for practicing chastity within marriage.

    Jezabel - you sure you're not Catholic?!? You've got a wonderful understanding of chastity and sexuality! For your final question about seeking pleasure without being open to procreation -- I've never actually had sex (though I have unfortunately "fooled around" in the past so I have a slight idea) but my best guess would be that the pleasure is so wonderful, that we humans want it for pleasure's sake. And I believe that God make sex pleasurable on purpose; He wants husband and wife to enjoy coming together and renewing their marriage vows while potentially bringing new life into existence. Plus, we all crave love. And we have disordered, selfish instincts due to Original Sin that cloud our judgment and make us want to have sex without consequences.
    Just some late night thoughts, hopefully they make sense :)

    ReplyDelete
  143. I am baptized Catholic, but only as a cultural tradition, so to speak, not as a religious observance. Although I disagree with Catholicisn theologically (I don't follow any religion), I have to say that regarding sexuality, marriage, family, and relationships, the views I found in Catholicism are by far the views that make sense to me the most. To be honest, I've never understood abortion, and contraception never made sense to me either. There are some people from every religions (and even people with no religion) who understand the evils of contraception, casual sex etc., but the majority of those who see it are Catholics.

    I think I understand what you mean by pleasure being "wonderful". I may not struggle with sexual desire but I do struggle with other types of desires, it's the same patterns. Following our desires ultimately makes us a slave to them [our desires]. I'm not exempt from this.

    Another problem is that while we all want to be loved and to love, "love" has been confused with attraction, sex, lust, etc. I believe that marriage for example shouldn't be based mainly on "romantic love" but on compatibility, similar values, etc., and "romantic love" will not sustain a marriage...only unconditional love will. And that type of love...it grows bigger and bigger, it doesn't disappear with the years...

    In a way, I'm lucky I don't even feel sexually attracted to people. It's given me the opportunty to see some things more clearly. Looking from the outside without a personal interest in defending casual sex. It was also easier to choose to love someone, rather than being blind by "attraction".

    ReplyDelete
  144. "Q: Why don't they control themselves?
    A: Because they were taught that sex is something to be obtained for the sake of pleasure, and because they are sold sex as a commodity, rather than as a potentially life-creating act."

    This is just a lie. Sex as a purely physical act has only been touted for the past 50 years or so. Rape and consent issues have been prevalent since the beginning of time. If your hypothesis was true we'd see the least amount assault in deeply religious societies where procreation was tied into sex,when generally speaking the inverse may be true.

    The pill didn't 'create some weird atmosphere that caused men to disrespect women. If it did, things like this wouldn't be happening in pill-less societies

    http://time.com/war-and-rape/

    Disrespect of women's bodies has been the norm in socities way before the pill came to be. And that notion, that legalized birth control, or that allowing women to wear mini-skirts, or go about unchaperoned, causes this disrespect, is well, perpetrating the disrespect.

    ReplyDelete
  145. CS,
    There is a staggering level of disconnect in your reasoning and understanding when you attempt to defend this PP outlook. You cannot seem to get passed the whole idea that we understand all about the consent issue. It's the components you don't want to look at, for whatever reason. If you'd take 15 minutes and flowchart the components and philosophies, you might start to get the understanding of where that all breaks down, logically, even, if not morally.

    The bottom line is-- You are a professed Christian. What goal do you hope to attain by promoting this PP outlook, by defending promiscuity, or by generally trying to throw up a shockingly inept intellectual rebuttal to all of these logical points raised here?

    You are how old now? Come on. It's time to let the rubber meet the road. How long do you wish to roll around in this nonsense? And why? For what gain? What are you hoping for here?

    This thread is sour now. Goodbye.

    ReplyDelete
  146. CS, so why don't men control themselves?

    How is it disrespectful to admit that birth control, hypersexualization, the commodification of sex, etc., if not causing disrespect, contributed to this disrespect?

    ReplyDelete
  147. CS, that article you posted is so horrific, so evil and hard to read. Interestingly, I had just posted this NYTimes article yesterday or the day before, on my Facebook page:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/world/middleeast/to-maintain-supply-of-sex-slaves-isis-pushes-birth-control.html?_r=0

    Now the rapists can maintain their supply of sex slaves by making sure these young girls are on birth control. One more way to objectify. Keep them from conceiving, and you can use them even more! Evil, no matter which way we look at it.

    I am so disturbed to my core about the use of rape in war. What is interesting is something Uju (Nigerian) said about the general disrespect of women in her culture. She said that a couple of generations ago, the nuns came and Christianized her towns and villages and tribes. The result? The transformation of the society, and the respect for women that had not been seen on that level. Just like in ancient Rome, it was Christianity that revolutionized the culture, declaring that women absolutely have equal dignity to men, and such a thing had not been heard of before that. Want to end the brutality of both our articles? Bring Christ. Bring Christianity.

    Also, only because I'm curious, the college kid who is naked with a girl, probably still a bit drunk, making out with her for a while, having gone back to her place, about ready to insert penis (sorry), she says no.... he doesn't stop in the moment. Is he a rapist like those war criminals (who are pure evil, in my book)? Meaning, was his an act of violence, or was it fueled by the idea that sex is about pleasure and what harm could it do? Can't stop at this point anyway....

    I hope that makes sense, forgive me if not! (And, BOTH the war crime and the dorm situation are WRONG, so don't misunderstand me.)

    ReplyDelete
  148. Also, the use of brutal rape in war or to subjugate women has gone on forever, as you say. What is *new* is that the "good guys" (yep, regular guys, not rapists) can now more easily look at women as objects for their use.... contraception, porn, promiscuity -- and women's cooperation and acceptance of that -- has brought it about. If a woman makes herself available to men, no only by casual hook-ups but also by making sure she is a sterile object for his pleasure (no babies to worry about, just pleasure and use!), then of course he is going to see that woman (or that culture of women) as there for him to use, albeit with permission (which she more than likely gives these days). Women have allowed it and facilitated it! Shame on us for allowing ourselves to be cheapened and disrespected. How little do we think of ourselves?

    ReplyDelete
  149. Leila,

    I couldn't even finish that article. It as ghastly. But surely the pill isn't to blame for the horror, ISIS is? Putting women on the pill and raping them isn't worst than raping women as a war tool and impregnanting them. Its all really disgusting stuff that's impossible to rank. Just vile

    And of course theres a world difference between these war criminals and frat boys. They are on opposite ends but they share the same spectrum. People don't lynch black people anymore (thankfully), but people can still act racist, its still a problem and black people should still be fighting for an end to racism which has gotten more nuanced since its tactics are less overt, same principle applies here


    ReplyDelete
  150. It worries me when you say 'that women have allowed this. It worries me that the most conservative voice and the most liberal voice (porn) sends men the same message about women which is that if there is a naked woman ( who isn't your wife) in your bed, she doesn't respect herself, how can she expect you to?

    It simply isn't true, that the woman who went home with you who is taking birth control doesn't respect herself, it could be. But it doesn't surprise me at all that men are ignoring no's when we tell them that.

    In the scenario, you outlined above, where the woman willingly got drunk and naked and went home with a friend from the bar, and she told him to stop being he 'inserted'. Did he rape her? Should she by able to file charges and have a case that is respected? Should she tell his friends that he is a rapist, is she a victim? And if the answer is no to all those questions, what should happen?

    ReplyDelete
  151. You are absolutely right, CS, that with or without forcing birth control, the rape of these poor girls and woman is a vile and horrible tragedy and crime. Absolutely right. But some want to make the argument that "hey, at least they can't get pregnant!" if they put them on birth control. As if that's a bright spot? Either way, the evil is dark and pervasive and real. And Christianity is the answer to the dignity (the REAL dignity) of women. And the virtues. We must bring them back and stop making excuses for why we can't.

    As for the drunk frat boy who is told "no" by the naked woman at the point of insertion but goes ahead, what do you think should happen? Is he like the men in the Congo or ISIS? You said earlier he is not, and that you don't want to see "unwilling rapists" (I think we called it) go to prison and lives ruined. Is there even a good answer here? Isn't the answer along the lines of what Nubby has been trying to get at? WHY aren't we teaching our daughters as well as our sons? How do the PP videos (which glorify and encourage fornication, which should be repulsive to you, a Christian) help the culture step back from its evil drift, or even help an individual in that situation? Is there really a chance that a rapist will not rape if he sees that? And if he was a rapist to begin with, would he really change on a dime?

    So many questions to ponder. Virtue is the answer to all of them, but we won't touch that....

    ReplyDelete
  152. He's not a war criminal, true. But just because you aren't pure evil doesn't mean you aren't a regular criminal or doing something bad.

    So yes, I think the frat boy IS a rapist. Its a difficult case to prove, and will continue to be, but when you have sex with someone who hs told you not too, that is literally the text book definition of rape. She should call you a rapist and you should experience the appropriate repercussions for that crime.

    Information (whether they come in the form of those videos or whatever) can help these boys because, he haven't done a good job telling them (that behavior IS rape. That's evidenced by this conversation, because you, and maybe of the other ladies, don't seem to think its rape either. If we did a better job communicating consent, telling these boys about the consequences to their actions, giving them actual consequences, than we would see en enormous decrease.

    ReplyDelete
  153. I'm going to have to say that as long as the hook-up culture and promiscuity exists (along with abortion and contraception which makes women pure objects to be used at will, combined with binge drinking) no PP video will have any HOPE of "enormously decreasing" these types of rapes. No hope at all. As long as the cultural norms prevail, you will see just as much of these disgusting incidents as before. I guess time will tell as far as if I am right on this prediction or you are.

    ReplyDelete

PLEASE, when commenting, do not hit "reply" (which is the thread option). Instead, please put your comment at the bottom of the others.

To ensure that you don't miss any comments, click the "subscribe by email" link, above. If you do not subscribe and a post exceeds 200 comments, you must hit "load more" to get to the rest. We often have meaty and long discussions -- trust me, they're worth following!